The latest document from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, titled Fiducia Supplicans (Supplicating Trust), has generated a lot of controversy since its release early Monday. And as has become more and more common these days, you find both staunch conservatives and progressive liberals agreeing that there is more to this text than meets the eye and that it does indeed represent an important shift in magisterial teaching.
In a podcast on “The Catholic Thing,” Robert Royal and Fr. Gerald Murray said the new text has introduced an “innovation” into how the Church understands the nature of some priestly blessings in order to justify the blessing of “same sex couples”. The indefatigable LGBTQ advocate Fr. James Martin, S.J. agrees, as we see in his statement on “X” that, “Be wary of the ‘Nothing has changed’ response to today’s news. It’s a significant change. In short, yesterday, as a priest, I was forbidden to bless same-sex couples at all. Today, with some limitations, I can.”
My own view mirrors that of Royal and Fr. Murray, and I think the document clearly calls for an interpretation that views it as a significant change from past practices. As usual, the papal “explainers” are left scrambling for justifications and explanations that are increasingly difficult to sell to anyone who has been paying attention.
If there is nothing really new here and the text is just repeating what Pope Francis has already said in his response to the dubia questions in October, right before the Synod, then why issue it at all? And, not only issue it, but raise it to the level of a “Declaration,” which is the highest level a DDF document can reach, the last one being Dominus Iesus in 2000.
In fact, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, in his preparatory remarks, says that the document represents an important development of the Church’s doctrine concerning blessings, which is why he was issuing it as a “Declaration”. He goes so far as to refer to this development as an “innovation”:
The value of this document, however, is that it offers a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings, permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings, which is closely linked to a liturgical perspective. Such theological reflection, based on the pastoral vision of Pope Francis, implies a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church. This explains why this text has taken on the typology of a “Declaration.”
Unfortunately, the document is just the latest in a line of confusing texts and documents in an already confusing papacy. Why is this document needed at all? The innovation of positing a distinction between types of priestly blessings, which makes some of them “non-liturgical” and “non-sacramental,” is problematic.
The text apparently presumes that such a distinction is possible. But it flies in the face of the fact that when a priest blesses anything or anyone, in any setting of any kind, he is doing so—not as an individual who possesses some kind of personal powers of magic—but precisely in persona Christi and in the name of the whole Church, which possesses the full agency of Christ as He who blesses the world.
Therefore, all priestly blessings have an inherent orientation to the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church. Indeed, is this not why people want a priest to bless them, their houses, and their devotional objects in the first place? I could ask any random lay person to bless those things “in the name of Christ Jesus”. But we seek out instead priests to make such blessings because of his sacramental character as one possessing Holy Orders, which in turn is what links him to Christ and all of the other sacraments in a preeminent way. In other words, we seek out priestly blessings because we rightly sense the full weight of the Church, in all of her sacramental glory, behind those blessings. Thus, all priestly blessings are inherently sacramental and liturgical in a real way.
Distinguishing between blessings with a liturgical/sacramental orientation and those without one might seem to make a useful pastoral distinction, but it is a distinction that smacks of a clever theological parlor room trick rather than of a genuine theological development. Cardinal Fernandez calls it a development of doctrine, but it is not evident how this constitutes a true and organic development of the doctrines concerning blessings instead of just some slight-of-hand in order to achieve a predetermined result.
In other words, as I said about the recent Motu proprio (ad theologiam provendam), the text reads like a conclusion in search of an argument. The only reason for such distinctions between different kinds of blessings—and the only reason for inventing a new kind of “non-liturgical, non-sacramental” kind of blessing—is to justify blessing people in sinful sexual unions while still being able to claim that there is nothing “formal” taking place.
Unmentioned by most commentators is the subtle, but very important, shift in language where sexual unions that are objectively, gravely sinful are now euphemistically referred to as merely “irregular”. I bought a shirt once that was cheaper because it had “irregular” arm lengths; I also once had an “irregular” heart beat. Irregular thus usually means something that deviates from a standard norm and such deviations can be as relatively harmless as a mis-sized sweater or as harmful as a sketchy heart rhythm. But, by itself, the term “irregular” can imply either. Therefore, the constant usage of the term in this document and others like it is itself a poker “tell” that the sexual sins in question are being portrayed as perhaps not so sinful “in all cases” and may just be the equivalent of that irregular shirt sleeve.
This little two-step has become both common and tiresome during the ten years of this papacy. First, begin by affirming that “no doctrines are being changed”; secondly, move quickly to speaking of the doctrines as “ideals of perfection” that nobody lives up to completely—this legitimates not applying the doctrines in any meaningful way to the lives of real people who are deemed “not yet ready” for the full milk of the Gospel. Thirdly, the doctrines in questions are quietly and quickly set aside “for pastoral reasons”.
That is a clever trick, but it has been used once too often and has now become predictable to the point of simply being tiresome.
The moral teaching of the Church, especially on matters sexual, is undercut directly when the text says that no “moral interrogation” of persons is to take place before a blessing is given lest this be seen as a kind of clerical “control” that positions itself as an obstacle between the supplicant and the unqualified love of God. This rather harsh and strange characterization of a pastor’s duty to make those kinds of moral adjudications is another indication of the mind of this papacy. The presumption is that most priests are finger-wagging, pinched-up moralizers who would most likely botch such pastoral encounters, so Rome is intervening to put the kibosh on any such “conservative” conversations. How very synodal of them!
These new blessings of Cardinal Fernandez are innovative precisely insofar as they are unmoored from real moral consideration. They are the reduction of a priestly blessing to a shallow, “Good morning. How are you? I hope you are well today.” And who could or would object to that except a jerk?
The rationale behind the problematic distinctions between blessings is vague and rather contradictory. The text is adamant that such blessings can in no way be confused with a marital blessing, or that what is being blessed is the “union” as such. But then the text says that the blessing is offered in order to lift up into God’s light those elements of the relationship that are truly good and nurturing. How, then, is that not blessing the union as such? Or are we seeing yet another hair-splitting distinction between the sinful elements in the union, which are not being blessed, and the good parts of the union which are?
But how is the priest to know, since he is not allowed to ask “moral” questions beforehand? This gives every indication that Rome does not think sexual sins are really all that nettlesome. I doubt the Vatican envisions an incestuous brother and sister couple who are in an “irregular union” requesting a blessing. But if they do, and they ask the priest to bless their “relationship,” is he not supposed to ask any further questions in that case? Or is it only some sexual sins that are off limits? I suspect such is the case, with the sins that are “off limits” pertaining to the more socially acceptable (and thus “overlookable”) sins of homosexual unions or the divorced-and-remarried.
Even worse, however, this text further justifies such blessings on the grounds that nobody is perfect anyway and priests routinely bless random people no matter their sinful status. On the surface this seems reasonable, but it masks a deeper agenda to so attenuate the call to sanctification that this call applies to practically nobody. This is on par with the constant emphasis in this papacy that there can be no real Eucharistic discipline applied in the Church because the Eucharist is not, after all, a prize for the perfect. As with the Eucharist, so too here. None of us “deserve” the Eucharist or any priestly blessings. We do not “earn them” through good works and we are all sinners who fall short of the mark. Therefore, just as sinners can receive the Eucharist as a healing balm so too can they receive priestly blessings. And any opposition to this is just pharisaical hypocrisy.
The text insists that it is not contradicting the 2021 statement of the DDF, which states the Church cannot confer such blessings since the Church cannot bless sin. The explanation given is that the new blessings being proposed are not blessing the sinful sexual unions as such but only the individuals who have presented themselves “spontaneously” for a blessing. Apparently, it is the category of “spontaneity,” mentioned several times, which is the key since that makes the blessing, allegedly, less formal and similar to a priest randomly running into someone on the street who says, “Hey faddah, could ya give an old alta’ boy a blessing?”
But context is everything. And, really, who are we kidding here? There are already formal liturgical blessings of homosexual couples taking place in churches in Europe and North America. The vast majority of Catholics in those regions already approve of “gay marriage” and the moral legitimacy of homosexual relationships. They are already spinning this as a “huge step forward” and so on for the cause of “gay rights” in the Church.
It took Cardinal Fernandez 5,000 words to explain this, which is a waste of words. Are most Catholics in the pews going to recognize, understand, and care about all of these wonderful distinctions? Do they even want to? Certainly most in the media have not gotten the memo. Here are some representative headlines from December 18th:
CNN: “Pope Francis authorizes blessings for same-sex couples.”
BBC: “Pope says priests can bless same-sex couples”
Drudge: “Pope says priests can bless same-sex unions”
CBS: “Pope approves blessings for same-sex couples under certain conditions”
ABC: “Pope approves priests blessing same-sex couples”
NBC: “Pope says priests can bless same-sex couples, a radical change in Vatican Policy”
Fr. James Martin: “Along with many priests I will now be delighted to bless my friends in same-sex unions.”
Thinking there is going to be a clean and neat distinction on a pastoral level between these blessings and marital blessings is foolish, or worse. The cultural context is determinative here in analyzing and recognizing what this document is truly aiming at. Simply put, if Cardinal Fernandez and the Pope think this distinction between formal liturgical blessings and more informal non-liturgical blessings will hold up down in the trenches of parish life, then they are either the two most ignorant and obtuse people to ever occupy those offices, or they know exactly what they are doing.
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.
Clear, concise and compelling analysis. Again , thank you, Dr. Chapp.
You’re right. The “distinctions” cited by Tucho are kabuki theater, intended to mollify the by now exhausted faithful at least enough to keep them quiet. Also, to give the Bergoglio apologists a fig leaf with which to adorn their arguments.
But the triumphant mainstream press — like its brethren in the progressive Dark Vatican — knows that this is the big moment. This is the evil one finally making its decisive move to bring down the Catholic Church.
And the American bishops, as evidenced by their mewling USCCB statement, don’t have the gravel to stand up for the truth and expose this unmitigated evil.
Even the timing is calculated. Evil chooses the week before Christmas to strike, when faithful Catholics are busy and distracted. By the time they realize what’s going on, it’s all a fait accompli.
There is a horrible precedent as regards the timing of this bombshell. Holy Week 2018 and the Times of London has a headline: “Pope Francis ‘Abolishes Hell'” .
Yes, it was another off the record Papal interview with Scalfari – no recordings, no shorthand notes, etc.
I think it’s pretty clear that the USCCB does not see the document as intrinsically problematic. No need to cast aspersions on their judgement.
Dr. Chapp – well said, although one (partial) response might be that the Vatican is directly reacting to the illicit practices in Germany.
If the Pope wants to address the illicit practices in Germany, can’t he give them the Strickland treatment? Or that is reserved for orthodox Bishops only?
Touché
When will priests be allowed to bless abortion pills so that we can accompany people on their journey?
How about “polyamorous” groups?
We could really spice up October 4th if the anti-St. Francis would invent a “blessing” for people who marry their pets.
True story.
Sidewalk counseling outside Planned Parenthood, when abortion was still legal in Texas (!), I often witnessed ordained ministers acting as escorts “to accompany” women into the clinic. How do I know they were “ministers”? They would come “to accompany” me when Auschwitz was between trains, seeking with smiles to win me over to their position.
So yes, all manner of pastoral heresies are on the way…
And for what it’s worth, the heroic Protestant Pastors (Baptist, et al.), who often led us in prayer outside PP, gave these wolves a talking-to.
What would it take to get the US Bishops to finally fight for Sacred Scripture and Tradition? Few sought a correction after Amoralist Laetitia.
My guess: Jeannine Cardinal Gramick (Cardinal Minister, lay elector, already ‘in pectore’?), et al. After all, Sr. Jeannine Gramick has the “style of God.”
A Dialogue…
(P) Parishioner: Cardinal Cupich, fancy meeting you here in the parking lot!
(C) Cleric: God bless you.
(P) Thanks. But wait. We’d feel good if you’d give a single blessing to both of us. Certainly not of our lifelong union, but both of us at the same time. The efficiency thing…
(C) Yes, my son. After millennia a new development, and it’s okay now under very limiting conditions.
(P) Yes, well, this is my partner, journeying with me in friendship.
(C) Again, this blessing has to remain “spontaneous.” And can’t cause scandal or confusion. Or even appear to be a sacrament or ritual like, say, “marriage.”
(P) Sure, we get it, especially with all these kids and pets around here. We see you’re blessing the children’s pets. Great timing! But I guess it won’t look like a liturgical act since you yourself are only a “presider” or “minister” and synodal “facilitator” now, or whatever, and not alter Christus.
(C) I’ll hide my collar. Now, introduce me to your lifetime partner…
(P) Oh, this is “Doormat;” it says so on his collar, he’s a German Shepherd. But, as long as you’re at it, how about blessing all these other partners, too. We’re “irregular” polygamists.
Why kid ourselves? They know exactly what they are doing. How much deeper into this sewer is this depraved man going to drag us?
Stop the money!
Yes! And demand transparency before any gift. It’s the only thing they fear.
I disagree. This latest document is actually the most conservative and orthodox laying-down-the-law ever to be issued by Pope Francis. It effectively quashes the possibility of the Church ever approving of and ritually legitimizing same-sex unions or marriage — ever. The alphabet people and Jimmy Martin are celebrating. Little do they realize that their dreams have just been shattered by Pope Francis. Oh, they’ll get their “blessings” and think that they mean their relationships are being affirmed; they’ll think the “blessings” are a first step to even more formal affirmations. When, over time, more responsible adults get through to them, they’ll realize that Pope Francis has brought down the hammer on them. The German episcopal conference has effectively just been told that no liturgical rite for blessing same-sex unions is permissible and to knock it off. The whole movement has been halted in its tracks, but the gays and progressives don’t get that yet. They will.
Let me get this straight, Scott.
You’re saying that Bergoglio approving the blessing of “same sex couples” means that “same sex couples” will never be able to be blessed.
I’m afraid your strategic chess board has more D’s than I can comprehend.
Well said, brineyman….The “blessing” is a square circle. And, this too about straight lines in the sand:
“…the commandment of love of God and neighbor does not have in its dynamic any higher limit, but it does have a lower limit, beneath which the commandment is broken” (St. John Paul II. Veritatis Splendor, n. 52).
Please, Peter, explain how this blessing is a “square circle.”
Sorry, but I think the board is pretty clear. The document clearly distinguishes between blessing the unions as such and blessing those elements in them susceptible to redemption. People insist on reading this with the worst possible interpretation. I think they have a fair point, insofar as the document will be abused, but the fact is it does not constitute a reversal. Development, yes, but I don’t see that it’s intrinsically problematic.
You are so very wrong. If Pope Francis can say last year, that “sin cannot be blessed” and then this year say “Bless this sin”, then he can reverse himself and say that gay marriages are now to be blessed in the church. Or his loosey goosey successor can.
Sam – that’s precisely not what the pope is saying. There is no question of blessing sinful unions. If a Union at all is blessed, the blessing invoked is not of the union as such but of the elements in it that are good, and it is oriented toward elevation and healing.
The elements of the union…so the union? The only elements of the union are the people so there’s no need for this document because people, as individuals, could be blessed. The only point to this whole document is if there is something being blessed that isn’t simply the individual
Excellent point, Thunderjerky!
There are no elements of good in sin. That’s what makes it sin. You are defending the indefensible and trying to pull a Francis here.
Well-put.
You accomplish no good by assaulting the honor of God. Francis believes God himself is a backward ideologue for creating what Francis hates with a passion, objective morality, which he obsessively calls ideology, and only others sharing the same obstinance would fail to see that the hatreds of Francis need to be rejected. Countless times Francis, himself the personification of ideology, has, without any sense of irony, condemned objective morality as ideology and those who uphold it as ideologues. Were Francis a sensible, reflective man, he would know that ideology is predicated on the very denial of objective immutable truth, which he has also denied in his frequent moods of adopting an unaware atheistic mindset. People of faith, know that all truth comes from God, not some truth, all truth, and that truth is immutable and eternal, yet these are the people Francis, in his own faithless ideology, obsessively labels faithless ideologues.
He is the perfect Orwellian pseudo-Catholic man of the times. In Paragraph 25 of this document, he and Fernandez indulge their common practice of characterizing, via an implicit warning, not to exercise or apply a scintilla of doctrinal moral thought, something they imply is implicitly immoral in itself, yes you read this right, since it is exclusively the product of an ideological narcissistic elitist expecting and demanding perfection. They offer no basis for how they formulated such a caricature of those who believe morality is not immoral and have no capacity for human empathy.
A law has to be enforced to be law. The prescriptions in this Declaration will be honored in the breach. Just watch.
I wish I could see it that way, Scott. But what I think we are much more likely to see is that the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage and sexuality will be formally left standing, but ignored by actual “pastoral practice,” which will lead to an unofficial but de facto recognition of same-sex “marriage. Those who object, of course, will be denounced or ignored.
Never worry though, since the Pope will no doubt act forcefully to crush the TLM completely – he knows what really matters, eh?
“Laying down the law;” “halting this movement in its tracks;” “It effectively quashes the possibility of the Church ever approving of.. same-sex unions…”
I also want desperately to agree with you, Scott. But within the year, you will hear this argument being made: “How is it that the Church can bless same-sex partnerships while simultaneously acknowledging that homosexuality is disordered?” This apparent contradiction begs for a resolution. It seems there are two ways to resolve it: 1. declare such blessings inadmissible or 2. attempt to re-write the catechism on sex and marriage.
I’m afraid the effect of this declaration will be the complete 180-degree opposite of what you are claiming.
I don’t know that I entirely agree, but I find Dr. Chapp’s article disappointing. It’s analysis of the theology of blessings is excessively rigid and devoid of an awareness that, as Dr. Fastiggi, has pointed out, Christ never said “only bless your buddies, people who agree with you, and those destined for the Kingdom of Heaven.”
Indeed, there is a truly creepy Calvinism or Puritanical mindset here, that states that blessings, which are not sacraments, are reserved for the most holy among us.
In fact, those who compare this debate to the Eucharist are wrong. The Church teaches that one must be in a state of grace to receive communion. The Church has not taught that a priest can only reserve a blessing for those in a state of grace.
Perhaps more to the point, blessings do not a) forgive sins, b) sanate defective marriages, c) create a marital bond where non exists, or d) justify us by virtue of the blessing.
The insistence that blessings do these things, or appear to do these things, is creepy, Puritanical, and very old school Protestant.
One of the oldest complaints about the Jesuits is contained in the statement ‘Jesuitical reasoning’
It is about finding loopholes so as to not necessarily lie but to misdirect and achieve the goal intended.
Blessing a couple is blessing a union. Thu is the definition of a couple, in regards to people, it referred to the coupling. This means sexually in today’s sexually depraved culture.
Reductio ad absurdum: in the 1940s a guy comes up to a priest and he kind of looks like Hitler, talks like Hitler, smells like Hitler asks a priest, ‘ I could like zee blessing on me and mine goals and Solution’
By your reasoning and the document the priest should not really look into any rigid and questioning moral status.’
This is an intentional and continual gutting of the Apostolic Tradition and basically makes many saints of the past fools for bothering to stand firm on the teachings of the Church.
Thomas Moore should have just said to King Henry VIII desire to divorce and remarry, ‘Meh…just go to a priest and ask for a blessing in your irregular relationship…It ain’teth no big thingeth’
Henry VIII did not ask for a blessing. He asked for a divorce so he could re-marry.
You conflate juridical acts of the Church or Sacraments on the one hand, with ordinary blessings – that are neither juridical acts of the Church nor sacraments – on the other.
This seems to be the heresy du jour in the Church – interpreting ordinary blessings as either Sacraments or juridic acts of the Church.
Scott, I find your reasoning to be rather myopic. Francis and Tucho just gave the LGBTQ community, the governmental atheists, and the Pravda-style mainstream media access to a nuclear bomb, i.e., the legal system. I guarantee you the lawyers are already seeking Roe-style test cases to be used to jail hate-speech clergy and drain the Church of finances. What, we haven’t learned our lessons from the clergy sex abuse scandals that are bankrupting many dioceses? Satan’s plan of attack to destroy the Church culminates in the destruction of the family (no such thing as a sacramental LGBTQ family). The final aspect of his attack is to deprive the Church of the finances needed to keep the Churches open.
This is the same tactic being used by the Marxist government in America to jail, bankrupt, intimidate social conservatives.
Is perhaps your charitable heart large enough to block your vision. This document/declaration is not the only writing emanating from the Holy See and the current paper, which has prompted questions, confusion, and concern. Am I correct it has a magisterial weight? …and if so does it beg the question of schism on my part in my questioning/objection to it?
Larry, it is a development clearly stated in the thrird unnumbered paragraph:
“The value of this document, however, is that it offers a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings, permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings, which is closely linked to a liturgical perspective. Such theological reflection, based on the pastoral vision of Pope Francis, implies a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church. This explains why this text has taken on the typology of a “Declaration.”
And it’s a proper development. You are off base. This nature of blessings have never been stated as Magisterium before. It now has. This is a new addition to the Magisterium. And there is nothing wrong with it.
What incredible straining at the gnat of “defining the pastoral meaning of blessings” while swallowing the camel of normalizing intrinsically disordered and mortally sinful perversions that cry out to heaven for vengeance while invoking the All-Holy God to bless them.
Manny,
Fr. Thomas Weinandy, former chief of the US Bishops’ committee on doctrine, disagrees with you. He says the document does not meet the magisterial requirements explained by St. Cardinal John Henry Newman in “Development of Christian Doctrine.”
“The pope or a bishop may be, by virtue of his office, a member of the magisterium, but his teaching, if it contradicts the received previous magisterial teaching, is not magisterial. Such false teaching simply fails to meet the necessary criteria. It possesses no ecclesial authoritative credentials. Rather, it is simply an ambiguous or flawed statement that attempts or pretends to be magisterial, when it’s not.
“Second, to bless couples in irregular marriages or same-sex couples without giving the impression that the Church is not validating their sexual activity is a charade. All those present at such blessings know, without a doubt, that such relationships are sexual in nature. No one is fooled. Actually, they are rejoicing that such sexual relations are being blessed. That’s the point of these blessings. It is not their sexual abstinence being blessed, but their sexual indulgence…”
I think what Fr. Weinandy is pointing out is the document’s failure to emphasize the need for continence, the need for repentance in order for practicing homosexuals to be right with the Church. To remove this need is to violate, not develop, doctrine.
You are so very wrong. This document does NOT lay out a theological theory of blessings in general. Fernandez is too stupid to do something so advanced. He merely tries to pretend he just developed some theory of blessings, and then applies it ONLY to homosexuality, which Kissyboy loves, loves, loves.
samton909,
“Kissyboy.” LOL!
I agree with Manny that there’s nothing wrong with the Magisterium expanding the meaning and application of blessings. In fact, Scripture seems to acknowledge that blessings don’t always communicate approval for certain actions. In Luke 6:28 Jesus says: “Bless (eulogeite) those who curse you.” In Rom 12:14, St. Paul says: “Bless (eulogeite) those who persecute [you].” Certainly Jesus and St. Paul are not providing approval of cursing and persecuting. It’s interesting that the same Greek root is used in Luke 1:42 when Elizabeth says of Mary: “Blessed (eulogēmēne) are you among women.” Here “blessed” certainly communicates God’s approval. We see that Scripture itself testifies to different applications of blessings.
For those wishing to understand how Fiducia Supplicans can be understood in an orthodox and Catholic manner, I would suggest this statement of Bishop Cozzens of Crookston, MN. https://www.crookston.org/bishop/statements/3588-nfpdecree-3
Dr. Pedro Gabriel also provides a very helpful analysis here: https://wherepeteris.com/answering-7-key-questions-on-fiducia-supplicans/
Dr. Dawn Eden Goldstein has likewise written an insightful and orthodox understanding of Fiducia Supplicans here: https://wherepeteris.com/answering-7-key-questions-on-fiducia-supplicans/
Robert Fastiggi,
The Magisterium is the depository of codified rituals and teachings of the Church.
The Pope and other members of the Magisterium have the right and the duty to protect, promulgate – and yes, develop – those teachings (doctrines) on how they could be applied within the context of prevailing cultures.
But such developments are supposed to work much like the Apostolic succession, in that they must have antecedents. They can’t be newfangled originals. They must be based on or grow out of previously received teachings already contained in the Magisterium. Otherwise, how would they develop, if they don’t have the seeds to grow from?
The Magisterium’s teaching on whether same-sex union could be blessed by the Church already has precedents. Former doctrinal chief Cardinal Ladaria answered it as late as in 2021. The answer is No. It means the Church cannot bless sin.
For the Pope and Cardinal Fernandez to use Ladaria’s ruling as the basis of “development” permitting the blessing of irregular sex unions, is to contradict it. And that’s why, no matter how Cardinal Fernandez sells this newfangled teaching as a “development,” it would not pass the test as laid out by Saint Cardinal John Henry Newman in his “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.”
Cardinal Fernandez tried to avoid collision with his predecessor’s ruling by declaring, it’s not the sinful union that will be blessed, but the individuals. And because the blessing is neither liturgy nor sacrament, recipients need not be in the state of grace.
If so, he might still need to clarify at least two items in the declaration. For instance:
“ 9. From a strictly liturgical point of view, a blessing requires that what is blessed be conformed to God’s will.”
Questions: Are actively practicing homosexuals “conformed to God’s will?” I understand that since this newly approved blessing is not liturgical, recipients do not have to be “conformed to God’s will,” is that it?
“12. One must also avoid reducing the meaning of blessings to a point where we expect the same moral conditions called for in the reception of the sacraments.”
Comment: In other words, a gay couple do not have to be in the state of grace to receive the blessing, since it’s neither liturgy nor sacrament. They don’t have to go to confession, express sorrow for sin, or resolve to “sin nor more and avoid near occasions of sin.” Or even be seen in church again afterwards. Is this right?
Dear Margarita,
Thank you for your comments. I think, however, you are operating on a false assumption. You say: “For the Pope and Cardinal Fernandez to use Ladaria’s ruling as the basis of ‘development’ permitting the blessing of irregular sex unions, is to contradict it.” If you read Fiducia Supplicans, 5, you’ll see that it reaffirms the prohibition of blessing of same sex unions.
We certainly hope that any informal blessing will provide the actual grace to help those not in the state of grace to confess their sins and be restored to the state of grace. This is clear from no. 32 of the declaration:
“Indeed, the grace of God works in the lives of those who do not claim to be righteous but who acknowledge themselves humbly as sinners, like everyone else. This grace can orient everything according to the mysterious and unpredictable designs of God. Therefore, with its untiring wisdom and motherly care, the Church welcomes all who approach God with humble hearts, accompanying them with those spiritual aids that enable everyone to understand and realize God’s will fully in their existence.”
God’s will is for everyone to be saved (cf. 1 Tim 2:4). This requires the state of grace. For sinners “to understand and realize God’s will fully in their existence” would, therefore, require the state of grace.
Be at peace, Margarita. The Church is not justifying sin. Don’t believe those who are telling you otherwise. They are misreading Fiducia Supplicans.
For the Truth of Christ, see:
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/muller-fiducia-supplicans-is-self
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/fiducia-supplicans-and-defense-ritual-purity/
For a fast moving example on the ground of those who bypass doctrine to embrace pastoral heresy, see:
https://english.katholisch.de/artikel/49704-zdk-vice-president-mock-a-framework-is-needed-for-acts-of-blessing
Dear Margarita, I think you are operating on a true assumption. Listen to your conscience and not worldly peace. With Fiducia Supplicans, Pope Francis is not justifying sin, he is teaching couples how to stay in it. Don’t believe those who are telling you otherwise. They are misleading you to accept pastoral heresy. All are welcome, to repent.
Forever your Fool, but God’s first.
Robert,
I know what you’re saying and the Church’s teachings on “actual grace” may well be the basis of FS’s development of doctrine.
The reason I mentioned Ladaria’s ruling is, while actual grace covers a wide area of human activities, Ladaria’s Responsum is specific on the matter of (not) blessing same-sex union, therefore it cannot be ignored. On its face, FS is a contradiction of the Responsum. That needs to be clarified.
Cardinal Fernandez avoided a collision with his predecessor by making FS appear like it’s the individual(s) and not the couple’s sexual union that ordained ministers would be blessing. But the word “couple” is all over the document and could mean “union” because that’s what makes them a couple.
And so, there’s great danger here. Liberal society does not distinguish the person from the sin, especially if the persons involved positively identify themselves by their gender of choice.
I’ve worked long enough with gay people and I assure you, they will take FS to mean the Church has given them the “right” to get married. One can only imagine the flurry of lawsuits that could rain on the Church if they are denied. (I’m glad my loss of hearing gave me no choice but stop being a catechist. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to explain FS to catechumens in RCIA.)
Everything is indeed grace, as St. Therese said. One never knows how grace works. Grace can effect conversion of sinners without any attempt to catechize or preach to them. I believe that. Since this new blessing is merely a sacramental, not a sacrament, it can always be attributed to grace. But the Church is also who she is – Mater et Magistra. Mother and Teacher who does not contradict what she teaches.
Perhaps oblivious to the problematic elephant in the room that frequently roams through many Vatican documents of Francis’ pontificate, R. Fastiggi’s recommendation of articles written by 3 popesplainers is presented in the following manner:
“For those wishing to understand how Fiducia Supplicans can be understood in an orthodox and Catholic manner,”…
Once again the faithful are treated to yet another document that is written with such “subtle wisdom” beyond the capacity of the poor rubes in the increasingly less populated pews that they need to consult learned spin-meisters to provide them with virtual 3D eye-glasses so they can safely leave Plato’s cave of shadows and see “the orthodox Catholicism” that’s really, really there all along.
Give me a break.
One of the recommended articles is provided by Dr. Pedro Gabriel. It should be recalled that Dr. Gabriel is the same person who wrote an entire book which claims the problem with Amoris Laetitia is not really a problem after all, and that it can be interpreted to square with Church doctrine if you twist and spin it hard enough to squeeze out the orthodoxy, and you only need an entire book of some 300 pages to gain the necessary understanding. R. Fastiggi highly recommended Gabriel’s book of spin, so it’s no surprise that he recommends another spin by Dr. Gabriel.
Like many, I’ve had it with these pretzel-brained popesplainers who make contortionists look like petrified trees in comparison. If the popesplainers were more honest, they would first acknowledge a very serious and ongoing problem with Vatican documents that require others to “explain what they really mean,” because writing such documents with the clarity of past pontificates continues to elude the current pontificate (gee, I wonder why). Instead, they act like arrogant elitists pretending that they are the ones who can see what many others cannot see in these “wise and wonderful documents,” and so they are all too happy to share their special insights to gaslight people into believing that they are merely hallucinating in what they see in these documents even though the passage of time always demonstrates that the alleged hallucinating actually sees more clearly than the popesplainers’ near-sightedness always fails to see.
And this Satan-satisfying routine will take place again when the next faux development of doctrine is presented as yet another subtly wise teaching that will ultimately undermine Catholic teaching on morality while the always ready army of popesplainers will employ their Jedi-esque mind tricks once more to advise concerned faithful that what they actually see and the dangers they portend are “not the droids they are looking for,” after which the popesplainers will play a self-congratulating tune on one of their Nero fiddles.
Dear Margarita:
Robert Fastiggi will assure that “there’s nothing to see here, just move along.”
That the Declaration says that there are two distinct kinds of blessings, and that the the new one alongside the existing one has nothing to do with the real one, and therefore that there is no contradiction, but instead, a “development”.
Butt, look at it this way. Some very rare births display two opposite sets of genitalia. Some would call this an abnormality, or even a mutation, while others will say its a “development.” Likewise the widespread (so to speak) confusion between a penis and a sygmoidoscope.
The Rubicon is in blessing the couple as such, rather than blessing the individual persons as such. Using your God-given common sense, what do YOU think? As if thinking still matters.
Peter D. Beaulieu,
I’m 80 years old and in my whole life, I’ve seen only one
case of hermaphroditism; that was how rare I was told it was. (I’m not a doctor, just a reporter in the Philippines many
many years ago) and in my wanderings, have seen some very strange-looking people, and in this case, a baby with two underdeveloped opposite sexual organs. I asked a doctor what could be done and she told me, first doctors have to determine whether the abnormality was just on the surface and perhaps a simple plastic surgery would be all that was needed. (She called it, “abnormality” not a “development.”) It may look equally developed at first, but further and deeper examination almost always revealed one was more developed than the other, in terms of the kinds and number of chromosomes, etc. (As you can see, I really don’t know what I’m talking about, but you get the idea.)
You asked how to resolve two conflicting “teachings” of the Church on blessing. (Or did I get that right?) Not a theologian, but I would suggest, dig deeper to determine which is the real one, for they can’t be both true if they contradict each other. The standard to determine authenticity has been set, according to the eternal revealed word of Him whose Church it is. Then excise the fake one out, for never could it be the morally equivalent of the other.
I suppose the difference between a penis and a… what’s it called? –sygmoidoscope — is, the penis is a natural biological attachment to the man while the sygmoidoscope is a tube made of inert material, artificial like plastic, that js inserted into the man’s whatever. (Trying to decide if this puzzle of yours is too complicated for me to grasp. Is it a joke?)
A blessed Christmas to you.
Dear Mr. Fastiggi:
Your suggestion that the FS Declaration “can be understood in an orthodox and Catholic way” discloses its intended dual purpose, the second, and of course the patently obvious way “it can be understood,” which is “to be understood as a blessing of men and women committed to abusing their bodies in mortally sinful acts of sodomy.”
Which recalls the question posed by Fr. Paul Mankowski to Rev. James Martin: “Is sodomy a sin?”
Here is the correct link to the article by Dr. Dawn Eden Goldstein on Fiducia Supplicans. https://wherepeteris.com/pope-oks-blessing-persons-in-gay-unions-what-it-means-why-it-matters/
Robert, the Church should not be interested in affirming your “loving” relationship. It should be 100% concentrated on saving your soul. That said, I can only imagine what kind of condemnation will wash over the “church” in the coming year. The church is brining down condemnation, not salvation on those disordered people. God might spare them their confusion, but He will not forgive those prelates that “bless” it at the expense of saving their souls.
There are any number of Pharisees commenting on these pages more than willing to cast the first stone without examining their own soul.
Reminds me of Protestant reformers who burned alive those who disagreed with them.
Robert Fastiggi,
I read Bishop Cozzen’s comments on FS. He writes, “What is the Vatican saying then? We know that Jesus Christ came to call all peoples to repentance and conversion…”
But that’s just it! I’ve read FS and nowhere does it call people to repentance and conversion. If I missed it, do point it out to me.
But I do like what the Bishop is saying. At least he fills in what is lacking in FS. I wish more Bishops were like him.
I also read Dr. Pedro Gabriel’s piece earlier. It’s a hard-pounding, lengthy explanation of what the Pope and Cardinal Tucho are saying. Gabriel is tightly, hermetically, and passionately approving of the document, allowing himself no word whatsoever on what critical or contrary opinions might be saying from the outside. He also pokes a little insult at trads whom he accuses of being overly obsessed with the subject of same-sex sex but less with opposite-sex adultery.
But maybe I read him too fast and missed some salient points. I may have to re-read him. Or maybe not.
And the link to Dr. Eden’s piece did not work. Sorry.
Jesus at Luke 6:28 advises how to act toward persons who are ENEMIES. Do you suggest that SSA-couples seeking blessing are ENEMIES of the Church, and for that very reason ought to be blessed?
Romans 12:14 also deals with one’s enemies. Aquinas’ catena goes to great length about actions toward enemies: Prayer, wishing well, calling to repentance, and the like.
Contemporary ecclesial practices do not prescribe sacramentals for SPECIFIC groups of SINNERS. When was the last time your parish priest called all FORNICATORS to stand after Mass for a special blessing? When were GLUTTONS or DRUNKARDS specifically blessed? Why or why not? How do SSA-couples differ from other types of sinner? What makes them SPECIAL?
Perhaps they in fact are ENEMIES OF THE CHURCH?
Robert Fastiggi,
A major part of FS is a primer on the meaning of blessings and how they work. It gives examples of blessings of and by people in the bible that go vertically down from God to the people, and up from the people to God. There are also blessings that go horizontally, from father to his family, to relatives, friends and communities, then back to the father. They are beautiful examples, as well as those you gave in your comment.
But there are other ways to categorize blessings and knowing their differences is crucial in understanding the nature of the particular blessing that FS is granting homosexual unions. One way is to define who and to whom and what kind of blessing are given on different occasions. I can think of at least three different kinds:
1, The Prayer Blessing – This is the kind that you and I give to family, friends, our social circles, even strangers when we say, “God bless you.” It is a gesture of love, fondness, goodwill, gratitude, and encouragement, which, in essence, is prayer for our neighbor. It does not require for us to determine what state their souls are in. We just bless them, because it is God who blesses.
2. Blessing of sacramentals and devotionals. This is the kind that priests and deacons bestow on people outside the liturgy, and it is in this category that FS says the blessing of people in irregular sexual unions falls under. Priests bless people without knowing the state of their souls; they also bless animals, religious objects, candles, houses, farms, and cars. Priests and deacons may bestow sacramental blessings to anyone, anywhere – in a crowd, on a bus, in the streets, on TV, etc.
The difference between the sacramental kind and the prayer kind is – an ordained minister does the sacramental. It’s not a sacrament or a liturgy. It’s called “sacramental” because it links by virtue to the sacrament of Ordination. BTW, religions objects like rosaries, scapulars, and medals are also called “sacramentals.” But this blessing is all about who does it, rather than to whom it is done.
3. Liturgical Blessing – This is the blessing that priests and deacons give in the context of the liturgy – during Mass and in the sacraments, i.e., confessions, weddings, LOTH, benediction, etc. It is far more sacred and solemn in character than the others because it is part of the official prayers and works of the Church.
My point is, you can’t say blessings could be given by anybody anywhere – look at the people in the bible, they did it to whomever they wanted to. It really depends on by whom and to whom it is given, and in what context.
God bless you.
St. Paul’s use of ‘bene-dicere’ (to bless) translates as ‘to say something good.’
For example, to say: “Mr. Fastiggi, ‘Your grammar is almost always correct.'” would be to bless [benedicere] Mr. Fastiggi.
Perhaps oblivious to the problematic elephant in the room that frequently roams through many Vatican documents of Francis’ pontificate, R. Fastiggi’s recommendation of articles written by 3 popesplainers is presented in the following manner:
“For those wishing to understand how Fiducia Supplicans can be understood in an orthodox and Catholic manner,”…
Once again the faithful are treated to yet another document that is written with such “subtle wisdom” beyond the capacity of the poor rubes in the increasingly less populated pews that they need to consult learned spin-meisters to provide them with virtual 3D eye-glasses so they can safely leave Plato’s cave of shadows and see “the orthodox Catholicism” that’s really, really there all along.
Give me a break.
One of the recommended articles is provided by Dr. Pedro Gabriel. It should be recalled that Dr. Gabriel is the same person who wrote an entire book which claims the problem with Amoris Laetitia is not really a problem after all, and that it can be interpreted to square with Church doctrine if you twist and spin it hard enough to squeeze out the orthodoxy, and you only need an entire book of some 300 pages to gain the necessary understanding. R. Fastiggi highly recommended Gabriel’s book of spin, so it’s no surprise that he recommends another spin by Dr. Gabriel.
Like many, I’ve had it with these pretzel-brained popesplainers who make contortionists look like petrified trees in comparison. If the popesplainers were more honest, they would first acknowledge a very serious and ongoing problem with Vatican documents that require others to “explain what they really mean,” because writing such documents with the clarity of past pontificates continues to elude the current pontificate (gee, I wonder why). Instead, they act like arrogant elitists pretending that they are the ones who can see what many others cannot see in these “wise and wonderful documents,” and so they are all too happy to share their special insights to gaslight people into believing that they are merely hallucinating in what they see in these documents even though the passage of time always demonstrates that the alleged hallucinating actually sees more clearly than the popesplainers’ near-sightedness always fails to see.
And this Satan-satisfying routine will take place again when the next faux development of doctrine is presented as yet another subtly wise teaching that will ultimately undermine Catholic teaching on morality while the always ready army of popesplainers will employ their Jedi-esque mind tricks once more to advise concerned faithful that what they actually see and the dangers they portend are “not the droids they are looking for,” after which the popesplainers will play a self-congratulating tune on one of their Nero fiddles.
As an extension of the Amoralist Laetitia loophole to tolerate concubinage in practice, we get more pastoral heresy with Sfiducia Supplicans.
Pope Francis and his Tucho say it’s a sin, to invent a “blessing” to stay in the sin.
Thank you, Dr.Fastiggi for explaining to readers, and the author of the article, a nuanced definition of “blessing.”
We forget that scriptural citations carry doctrinal weight: they are the Magisterium.
The obsession with conflating sacramentals with the Church’s teaching on the sacraments is both tiresome, and an innovation itself. The Church has never viewed the Sacraments and sacramentals as theologically co-equal.
Similarly tiresome is the paranoid argument that a generic blessing, which is not a marriage blessing, is somehow a backhanded ecclesial sanation of a civil marriage. This is preposterous.
May Almighty God bless you.
You think “nuanced” when your priest is standing in the vestibule making the sign of the cross over two men or two women holding hands while innocent children are looking on. Homosexuality is one of those sins that cries to Heaven for VENGEANCE, not my words, HIS WORDS. You would do well to know and respect them.
‘This blessing is not for people seeking a legitimation of same sex union but for those seeking to live better: “there is no intention to legitimize anything, but rather to open one’s life to God, to ask for his help to live better, and also to invoke the Holy Spirit so that the values of the Gospel may be lived with greater faithfulness” (FS 40).’
And yet, logically, it inherently grants legitimization by blessing a couple in irregular, meaning sinful, relationships.
In 2020, Pope Francis voiced support for civil unions for homosexuals.
This alone was a break from Church teaching:
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html#fnref17
If civil law, which is of a lower order and to be supported or fought against in light of Divine Law and Church Teaching, in light of the restriction of supporting even civil unions for homosexuals, how in God’s name is a Church sanctioned blessing of a couple in any fashion aligned to the perennial Truth?
Individuals can be blessed, presumably with some reasonable modicum of pastoral guidance.
Any rapist, pedophile, murderer, thief, or genocidal maniac that asked for a blessing upon their endeavor would be denied.
A ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ mentality when all indications are the person has no indicator of restraint or repentance is no healthy or legitimate response to sinful or disordered behavior
Is a pastor to turn a Jesuitical blind eye to this? ‘Who am I to judge what this funny mustached man meant by Final Solution’; is this the mentality?
A couple is a union. Blessing a couple is blessing the relationship they are in.
This means no matter how anyone tries to shoe horn this, there is not one iota of ‘go and sin no more’ included as part of a pastoral guideline.
The threshold of ‘do not give the appearance of condoning’ has been so far passed that it is dangerous to the Church. Witness everyone who is seeing this for what it is…a watering down and ignoring of sin.
Faithful Catholics are fully aware of all of our individual sin and failure and the need for repentance. This is nothing but an erosion of true pastoral care or concern for those living in sin.
The biggest affront is that in this season where John the Baptist’s rallying cry to all of us in contradiction to this blessing of a sinful Union.
5 People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. 6 Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
11 “I baptize you with[b] water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with[c] the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
Hello Manny, nice to meet you. I’m all about innovation and development too. I propose that the DDF regularize the expression “irregular blessings.” You know, let’s regularize irregular blessings for irregular unions. It’s too bad that the DDF stopped short of endorsing the “Rupnik form” of the irregular blessing. (You know, Rupnik was the Jesuit artist friend of Francis who liked to bless the guys and gals he was unionizing.) Touchy Fernandez felt that after the Rupnik affair blew up in his boss’s face, the Rupnik form was a bridge too far. Maybe next year. And what about the jocks and the coeds who are itching to get their hookups blessed? After all, everyone should have their unions blessed. I mean, union is union, right? Now that’s development.
You promote the very blasphemy that some bishops lament.
So clever, so funny! Merry Christmas, Richard Cross!
There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with receiving Our Lord while standing and in the hand either. It’s just that only 20% (tops) of those that do and have seen Our Lord received that way believe in the Real Presence. While 98% believe in the Real Presence who attend the Latin Mass where Our Lord is received while kneeling and on the tongue. Come to reality – where the rubber hits the road, this will cause nothing but scandal and drive even more people out of the pews. I just hope they find the Catholic Church, the pre-V2 Catholic Church when they go.
See Cardinal Muller’s piece – https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/muller-fiducia-supplicans-is-self
“In fact, there are no biblical texts or texts of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church or previous documents of the magisterium to support the conclusions of FS. Moreover, what we see is not a development but a doctrinal leap. For one can speak of a doctrinal development only if the new explanation is contained, at least implicitly, in Revelation and, above all, does not contradict the dogmatic definitions. And a doctrinal development that reaches a deeper meaning of the doctrine must have occurred gradually, through a long period of maturation. In point of fact, the last magisterial pronouncement on this matter was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a responsum published in March 2021, less than three years ago, and it categorically rejected the possibility of blessing these unions. This applies both to public blessings and to private blessings for people living in sinful conditions.”
You quote Robert Royal and Fr. Murray who call themselves the “Papal Posse,” a incredibly insulting term toward the Holy Father? They have never had a positive word for Pope Francis for his entire pontificate. How disappointing of you. This is the first Larry Chapp article I have come across that smacks of red meat, bait click material.
Robert Royal and Fr. Murray have for almost 11 years shown great courage in confronting the torrent of deliberate ambiguities, evasions, lies, hypocrisies, deceits, and sins of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his cabal of evildoers. Your calumnious trolling of these admirable Catholics is despicable.
Manny, a posse were those who enforced the law for their sheriff. How is that derogatory?
I don’t have TV connections anymore but I believe Mr. Royal and Fr Murray adopted “The Papal Posse ” years ago,and before Pope Francis was elected.
mrscracker,
The Papal Posse appears on the EWTN TV show titled “The World Over With Raymond Arroyo”. The program is televised on Thursday nights at 8 P.M. ET, and the program is uploaded to YouTube.com within hours or at most a day. If you search for the program in the search box at YouTube, you will find the episodes. The episodes are not always in chronological order in the search results.
Thank you so much Mr. Flynn. I used to watch EWTN when we had satellite TV but thank you for reminding me to look for that on YouTube.
mrscracker,
You are welcome, and it was a pleasant surprise to see that tonight’s episode was promptly uploaded to YouTube:
WORLD OVER – 2023-12-21 – BLESSINGS FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES?, WORLD OVER CHRISTMAS 2023
you can watch them off your phone or computer if you have an internet connection. Mass almost every morning at 8am eastern and repeated throughout the day.
their music is quite outstanding
they pray for the Holy Father regularly
Even Larry Chapp can have an awakening.
What a silly comment. “Papal Posse” simply refers to a group of people who discuss the papacy on a weekly basis. It is not insulting in the least. PLEASE NOTE: As part of the PR blowback to the Synod and this homosexuality nonsense, liberals are now coming here to issue lame defenses of the Pope. This never happened before, but suddenly, a lot of them are here. This is obviously a coordinated campaign, probably coordinated by James Martin himself.
Samton, we’re on to them, aren’t we. It’s nothing less than the exercise of prudence to be aware of what Satan’s up to at any given time.
I entirely disagree with everything you’ve written except for your last sentence. Chapp’s signature, modus operandi, and essence surely is as a large click bait.
CWR is lucky to have snared him; you, I, and many another have become trapped in the lair of the chap.
Manny – actually I believe it is Raymond Arroyo who calls the three of them together the “Papal Posse” and Raymond can be a bit silly at times. It was probably the best alliteration at the time that lent itself to fun television programming. No one takes it seriously. And it is also not true that Royal and Fr. Murray were “insulting” to Pope Francis. In actuality, both Royal and Fr. Murray tried very hard at the outset of this pontificate to explain the teaching of Pope Francis; they made a real effort and one could observe their struggle. These two men are more likely proof of the wayward teaching, because they made a sincere attempt to understand Francis within Church doctrine. When rational men like these (who do not use ad hominem arguments) can no longer accept what is being taught, it is a wake-up call for all of us.
“No one I dislike can ever be correct about anything, and if you quote such people I’ll dislike you too” eh?
If you want to get the whole truth of this matter, consider reading, listening and watching what Dr. Chapp calls the papal “explainers.” I invite you to check one of the foremost among them, Michael Lofton, in his website, reasonandtheology.com, and YouTube channel, Reason and Theology.
Yes, Lofton is very cringe inducing. His desire to be controversial, and to explain away every bad aspect of this papacy is very, very funny. His schtick is to attack anyone who questions the Pope, and he goes after the low hanging fruit such as the wackos Taylor Marshall, the SSPX guys, and various goofy bishops. But his steadfast inability to actually address the REAL issues is pretty funny. He is another Mike Lewis, who also refuses to address any real issues. Lofton’s silly approach is that the Pope is perfect, and no one may question him. And anyone who does is helping Satan. He is yet another goofy youtube freak, who imagines himself an expert, when in fact he is a child flailing around trying to look important.
I disagree with Chapp and you samton909 on some points.
All the Pope has done here is write 5000 words of gobbledygook that says you can bless a couple of gays as individuals if they ask for it spontaneously outside a formal liturgical setting. He wants to cynically look like he has given gays something meaningful by giving them in fact nothing. Which is a bad thing in itself.
Many gay rights activists from The Guardian to other publications notice this and have called this document a “small step”.
The document has it’s defenders who are orthodox and not Pope Splainers. I’ve read comments from conservative Protestants who read the document and said it doesn’t bless gay unions at all but calls for the simple blessings of a couple of sinners who happen to be gay.
(very civilized of them and charitable).
None of this of course lets the Pope and Kissy boi off the hook. The document is marketed in such a way as to cause confusion. It has an orthodox interpretation and an easy heterodox one as well. Liberals will ignore the text and do what they want as always.
The second after it was issued Fr. Martin violates the words of the text by blessing two gay men and referring to them as husband and husband. Which leads to another problem. If we take the text and interpret it in an orthodox manner and a Priest follows it to the letter can we trust the Pope to enforce his own teaching?
I say ah no! We cannae. That is the problem.
He should have left it alone. But he didn’t and caused confusion.
This is on Francis and Kissy boi.
The bootlickers are out in force. Lofton and his sycophants are the worst things to happen to the Catholic Church. What’s the use of an infallible magisterium without an infallible interpreter after all?
Once again Bergoglio and his lackeys take a sledgehammer to the Church’s Magisterium. I pray that when this corrupt Pontificate has ended, he will be treated the same way as Honorius and Formosus by his successors.
Spot on Dr. Chapp. Thank you for this incisive assessment. God help us.
Forgive all the vagueness, but yesterday morning someone somewhere on line referred to all of this sacramental vs. non-sacramental, couple vs. union flummery as a distinction without a difference. I’ve never seen that phrase used more fittingly.
I am not a theologian or a canon lawyer. I am just an old lady in the pew with no power or expertise to reject the document. But I do have some questions and comments to which I hope some people in authority may have the answers.
1. “From a strictly liturgical point of view, a blessing requires that what is blessed be conformed to God’s will.”
Questions: Are actively practicing homosexuals conformed to God’s will? But since this approved blessing is not liturgical, recipients do not have to be conformed to God’s will, is that it?
2. “…The Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice….”
Comment: Don’t be naïve. In the eyes of the gay community, a special Church blessing, liturgical or not, gives them “marriage.” Society does not care whether the Church has the power to do so or not. As long as the Church does it, it is. Society doesn’t sweat the small stuff.
The blessing might not be a “rite,” but it is, in effect, a “right” granted practicing homosexuals. Having lived and worked with gays in SF, you can’t blame me if I foresee lawsuits raining on the Church if some gay partnerships were denied this “right.”
3. “There is also a care to… (praise God) with ‘things, places, or circumstances that do not contradict the law or the spirit of the Gospel.’”
Comment: Again, don’t homosexual sex practices contradict the law or spirit of the Gospel? Can sodomy, traditionally taught as an offense that “cries to heaven, “now suddenly become a means to praise God?
4. “One must also avoid reducing the meaning of blessings to a point where we expect the same moral conditions called for in the reception of the sacraments.”
In other words, a gay couple do not have to be in the state of grace to receive the blessing, since it’s neither liturgy nor a sacrament. They don’t have to go to confession, express sorrow for sins, much less, resolve to “sin nor more and avoid near occasions of sins.” No cross = cheap grace?
5. “From the point of view of pastoral care, blessings should be evaluated as acts of devotion that ‘are external to the celebration of the Holy Eucharist and of the other sacraments.’ …For this reason, “pious practices must conserve their proper style, simplicity, and language, [and] attempts to impose forms of ‘liturgical celebration’ on them are always to be avoided.”
Comment: The document takes great care to explain that the gay unions’ blessing is not liturgy, not a sacrament, but a sacramental, a devotional, like praying the rosary. If that’s the case, why the need for a new form of sacramental, if we already have all the devotionals available for the same or other worthy purposes? Why not just lead the homosexual couple to praying the rosary and forget the blessing? Okay, they might not like the all-too-commonplace practice of praying with beads. They deserve something special.
Then, why not recommend the wearing of the brown scapular? Oh, no – that means going to confession and communion for five consecutive first Saturdays of the month. We can’t have that. Item #12 in the document says, “There is the danger that a pastoral gesture (the blessing) that is so beloved and widespread will be subjected to too many moral prerequisites, which, under the claim of control, could overshadow the unconditional power of God’s love that forms the basis for the gesture of blessing.”
The document says, “Avoid being judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.” If I am, please forgive me.
Well done! Trust your Catholic good sense. You do not need to be a Chair of Theology to know pastoral heresy when you see it. This too shall pass. Stay Catholic.
Camel, nose, tent. ‘Nuff said.
Lawfare versus faithful Catholic priests is now on the horizon,
May Almighty God have Mercy on His suffering Church.
60% of Catholics are pro-choice; believers in a Satanic lie of distorted language.
Will even more bless the public blessings of sodomy and other sexual sin?
It is highly likely. Yes. And that seems to be the goal of the Vaticans movers, shakers, dirty sex engagers.
I’ve described the thing as Rome’s pig, wearing lipstick. Many Maccabees won’t notice, won’t care, and will take and eat the thing. There will be famine in the land, and they will eat the thing. The abomination. The desolation. The pig.
In my opinion, Francis has surrendered his moral authority to teach that comes with the Petrine ministry. Case closed.
An outstanding article by Larry Chapp.
It can’t be magisterial as Pope Francis had said some time back, you can’t bless homosexual coupling and “it’s a sin not a crime”.
DDF is trying to reach a finish line set up somewheres on a track of its own making with its own set of runners and referees and sports-fans.
What seems to follow here is that the Holy Father will manage the sets and the off-sets one way and another to maintain and advance “inclusion”.
Coming after the “synod on synodality” I think my archbishop is mixed up in it; and that there’s is background intrigue chat going on as per last 20 years.
Very humble dark horse types small in their eyes that want to come forth by surprises.
In November after the “synod” my Archbishop published a report on parish activity with the lede “Sacramentalizing Transgender Inclusion” in print not internet.
It’s hard to believe that they don’t know exactly what they are doing.
The disgusting thing about Fernandez is his childish desire to distract people from the real issues. Fernandez PRETENDS the whole issue is whether people will confuse such blessings with marriages. That is far, far from the issue. That is a minor, minor point. The main point is whether priests should be blessing people who are performing a mortal sin routinely, and are quite proud of it. They refuse to stop sinning, period. Yet, Fernandez thinks that you can bless their sin, so long as the blessing is an attempt to “elevate” themselves and adhere to God’s plan. But they clearly reject that plan, and they have no intent on “elevating” themselves, and Fernandez explicitly demands that priests ask no questions about their moral state or fitness for a blessing. So the priest is prohibited from finding out WHY he is giving a blessing. He must simply give it when asked.
Under this new “theory of blessings” a priest must bless a pedophile who wants to be blessed for his pedophilia, has no intention of stopping his sin, and who claims to want to elevate himself by abusing children all day long. That is the direct result of this “Declaration”. I often wonder if Fernandez is simply in the service of demonic forces. Perhaps his real goal is the blessing of pedophilia. Blessings of pedophiles, murderers, bank robbers or Hitler himself is now possible.
In correctional facilities every variety of offender can ask a visiting priest for a blessing but not a blessing for their offense.
Well, I suppose they could ask, but asking’s not getting.
🙂
If the Church is supposed to be a field hospital, the doctors need to ask the patients about their symptoms and perform testing to be able to devise a course of effective treatment. The blessings sound more like sugar pills.
1. This is an abuse of magisterial theory. Frankly it calls into question some of the understandings we have had regarding this theory, as if it were a bunch of rules to be manipulated by church administrators.
2. Are Blessings done “in persona Christi”? I ask because Deacons also give blessings and don’t, it seems to me, act in persona Christi in the administration of the Sacraments. At least not in the same way a priest does.
Are there situations in which a Catholic priest may bless a person living in sin?
If a sinful individual after discussion with a priest indicates a willingness to consider repentance of that sin, the priest may offer a blessing making it understood as favoring the intent to repent.
If a couple living in adultery or same sex union were to express similar willingness to repent after discussion in private with a priest, he may bless them for their intention making that known in the words of blessing.
Otherwise absent of any willingness to repent, as omitted by Fiducia Supplicans a blessing however couched is apparently unlawful in accord with Church tradition and subject to sin.
Yes, a teachable moment preceding a blessing.
Using the Pope’s Concept of Blessings, why not extend them to the local Gay bar. It might simplify things for the Clergy.
Its obvious that many clergy in the Mystical Body of Christ no longer believe in the reality of original sin and its consequences. The world in on the brink of nuclear war and and the Holy Father and his advisors are concerned with blessing persons in sinful relationship. Would be better if they taught about hell and purgatory. As Blessed Mother told three young children at Fatima, “most people go to hell for the sins of the flesh.”
A pity that in his formation regarding anthropology, Pope Francis states that “I studied philosophy from textbooks that came from decadent or largely bankrupt Thomism”(“America”, September 2013).
When our fallen nature arises, certain Thomists condense the personalism of Thomas into reportedly dry manuals, propositions and “ideas”. When phenomenologists actualize their fallen nature, the telos of the “one flesh union” (our participation in the Trinitarian gift of Self), as well as the concept of same-sex attraction as a privation, is rejected in favor of “accommodation”.
Little wonder that Pope John Paul II, and his “Theology of the Body” are actively suppressed in this pontificate.
“This little two-step has become both common and tiresome during the ten years of this papacy. First, begin by affirming that “no doctrines are being changed”; secondly, move quickly to speaking of the doctrines as “ideals of perfection” that nobody lives up to completely—this legitimates not applying the doctrines in any meaningful way to the lives of real people who are deemed “not yet ready” for the full milk of the Gospel. Thirdly, the doctrines in questions are quietly and quickly set aside “for pastoral reasons”.”
It has indeed become tiresome. So have the many people who refuse to do more than look at the exact wording and refuse to acknowledge implications, or the people who refuse to see a pattern, or the people who decline to ask (as you asked) “what are the only reasons to issue this?” It’s just so disheartening. Again.
Ironically, the only way to defend this document is to be the absurd kind of theological hairsplitting so common in scholastic methodology. As someone who has been reading more and more of the phenomenologists of the early 20th century, the defense of this document is absurd. Just be honest and call it what it is. Our Church has found no way to fight against such abuse, however, so we’re stuck with the internet magisterium defending everything because they have no concept of truth outside of one wedded to power. The James Martin/ progressive/ trad crowd has it far more right than the neo-cons and they always have
Personally, I think the Vatican considers all the confusion to be intended and highly successful — not a disaster.
My questions: What type of man do we currently have as Pontiff that would create such a mess? What is in his heart?
1. To me, Dr. Larry Chapp’s analysis of this new Pope Francis document titled Fiducia Supplicans (Supplicating Trust), is like someone who has closely examined some paper currency and has concluded that it is counterfeit money, but then remains content for this fake currency to continue to be issued and used on a daily basis by all the businesses by all the shoppers in the whole economy.
2. Dr. Larry Chapp doesn’t make any call for this fake currency to be recalled or rejected by citizens, or for the counterfeiters to be condemned. So, the conterfeiters continue on corrupting the economy, with the passive consent of even those who mildly and politely object to it.
3. We are all blessers of sin, now, if we keep attending mass at parishes where homosexual unions are blessed by the parish priests. We show our approval of a sin that cries to heaven if we continue to attend mass at such parishes.
What will be the real world effect of this? Steve and Mike will stand in front of the altar, receive their blessing, kiss each other, walk out down the aisle holding hands and go to their fabulous reception.
What does Satan always do? He apes the Church and her sacraments as a way of degrading them (Bllack Mass, Satanic Priest, Santa Muerte, etc.). What’s the end game here? The destruction of matrimony and by extension the family. If two homosexuals or two people living together (or 3 or 4?) can be blessed by the Church, why get married? The world already says marriage is unnecessary, just cohabitate. Now the Church is effectively saying the same thing. All the headlines Mr. Chapp cited show that the world knows exactly what the Declaration is declaring. All the hair splitting and obsfucation is just to throw up a smoke screen (smoke of satan?) to confuse the faithful and give popesplainers something to say to try to defend it. But it’s like Romans 1:32 says: “Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.”
An innovation is not a development on sacred traditional doctrine or teaching of Jesus transmitted through the apostles and bishops. . Innovation is something completely NEW. It’s in the word, “innovation”. Look for it. I know you can find the novelty.
We need be very cognizant of what happens next. The tornado of law suits which are about to befall faithful priests whose consciences will forbid them from providing a bogus blessing to SSA couples. Who will be first? What diocese will hang their clergy out to dry? Which religious order and congregation? Which bishop will be first to knife his priests in the back?
Recall well the injustice leveled upon bakers for not providing a wedding cake? Does anyone think for a moment that the LGBTQXYZ legal counsel will turn a blind eye to Catholicism? While they ignored other ostensibly “faith” groups from abuse accusations they butchered Roman Catholicism. We are the juicy meal for atheists.
Recall as well those Catholics who individually refused to be inoculated for the Chinese bioweapon. How many heard “Your pope says its ok, pull up your sleeve.” I don’t recall any bishop coming to their rescue. Such courageous individuals lost their livelihood. No bishop spoke up. Not one.
I wonder if we will get to the end of this year before this hits the fan. Those who engineered this delight in it. They have provided the sure way to beat down faithful priests. They revel in it.
James, your comment on this (unfortunate) topic is absolutely – right, on, *target*!
Why would any couple front up to a priest and request a blessing?
A very nice analysis by Prof Chapp, especially in regards to his commentary that the thrust of the current DDF document is very much in line with prior statements by this Pope and his ministers. Just an observation: The word “confusing” is used a lot in the pages of this fine journal when its many authors, including Prof Chapp, describe the statements of Pope Francis. After ten years, it is hard not to conclude that this “confusion” is not a bug, but a feature. It’s safe to assume that with Francis, any statement on sex is designed to be confusing, but its spirit is clearly gay.
Fr. Chris Alar on the matter:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RWETLzSHK8Y
I am curious to know what CWR readers think of his remarks.
In a YouTube video, Eastern Orthodox priest Fr. Josiah Trenham presents a superb understanding of the obvious problems with the document than many Catholics do not possess. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOhXibKm03Y&t=1035s
Imho, I think Mr. Chapp’s evalutation is anemic. It’s the obvious that he misses. It’s not a disaster that has occurred before our very eyes, but truly an incredible tectonic shift in the church militant here on earth! With our earthly eyes, men debate and go back and forth about the validity of this or that in doctrine and the new development of humanity …….blah blah blah blah. NO! Oh blessed and humble fellow catholic brothers and sisters! Here is what many of us see PLAINLY with our spiritual eyes; a rupture of holy continuity, undeniably as bright as the sun on a cloudless day! That the smoke of Satan, yes, the smoke of confusion concerning something that by essence “unholy”, is now being allowed to be infected into the Catholic Church Priesthood, and once validated by blind priest, then it will become more than an infection in our Lord’s Holy Priesthood! This is an abomonation unto the Lord Jesus Christ, The King Of Life and King of Death, and the Humble Lamb of God WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
I sincerely pray that the Mr. Chapps and Mr. Weigels of the world close their physical eyes and open their spiritual eyes to see the great fog of Satan’s confusion, right there before our very eyes, with this so called “declaration”. A declaration that has now given birth to official unholiness into the HOLY HOLIES, The PRIESHOOD OF CHRIST, which CANNOT NEVER HAPPEN! EVER! Our Lord’s Mystical Body here on earth CAN NEVER attempt to make HOLY that which is unholy, especially his Holy Priesthood!
COME! LORD! JESUS! Holy Mary Mother Of God! Pray For Us! St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle ……
Gird your loins, oh men of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior!
This is another example of the bizarre notion of “pastoral theology,” divorced from the rest of theology, that is the idee-fixe of Francis and now, apparently, Tucho. It’s incoherence is obvious to anybody except the syncophants that engage in a bizarre modern version of ultramontanism.
The quality of thinkers at Catholic World Report has declined quite a lot. Case in point, the above remark.
The quality of thinkers at Catholic World Report has declined quite a lot. Case in point, the above remark.
Touché GF!
Well put, Mr. Grondelski.
Bergoglio’s shortcomings are clear when all of his distinctions and his obfuscations are swept aside.
He celebrates making messes because that’s all he’s capable of.
Larry you and I are on the same page on this one. We both know these people far too well to be mistaken about their intentions, or the effects of FS.
I’m impressed by the push back by some of the commentators here. What is troubling is that posts that exhibit irreverence and utter disdain for our Holy Father Pope Francis get a pass–and are posted, but if I, in one of my comments, so much as utter a slight ad hominem towards the author, it fails to get through–it is censored. The bias and lack of awareness of the double standard is utterly astounding. This is not a healthy Catholic journal.
You must not post here very much. The moderators allow quite a wide range of perspectives here, so your criticism is not justified.
So, Thomas James, who’s forcing you to come here? You regularly support things that strike at the heart of orthodoxy and you’re expecting to win sympathy?
Thomas James, paolo, Ler Abbamondi, this is a very healthful journal unique among its peers whether in the US or worldwide.
Your problem is that you are greedy for more insights to help yourself contort things further at the expense of everyone else. You undertake this gratuitive inveigling because you believe it has empathic resonance with men and some kind of standing with Almighty God. And you do succeed here and there which then confirms you in the conceitedness and rotten psyching. There is indeed a certain papal piety that flourished in the 20th Century. It has been hijacked and whether you want to be another hijacker or just a Stockholm traitor makes no difference. The fright you express for those “outside the Will of God” is your own entertainment.
False empathy. Injustice. Proto-heresy.
There is an arc of justice with a terminal point. No fanciful rainbow this! The Queen of Heaven Redemptrix is there again just as everywhere else along the way.
CRISIS Magazine attempts to assess aspects of religiosity. I think it is helpful to keep in mind that religion is one of the human virtues; as such subject to excesses and defects which are useful markers for understanding what is happening.
I thought this was a good essay in so far as it addressed a particular form of excess.
https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/a-papal-biopsy
I agree with you, Thomas.
Not sure what to think of all this. I have not read the Pope’s document. At 5k words I am not looking forward to it but I will (does explaining blessings really need this much effort?). But note that, in communication, context is almost everything. (The technical term is that natural language is context sensitive.) One can choose one’s own words but not how others receive them. My own experience is that those in positions of authority must be especially careful to craft language that is as context insensitive as possible. This is very difficult but some measure of success is usually possible. I do not get the impression that Pope Francis tried very hard at this. But I will read his letter and make up my own mind.
It is fundamental to maintain unity with Pope Francis and to pray for his magisterium in these difficult times. The Pope is the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ, and one must be familiar with the words of exhortation from the Queen of Peace so that pastors are loved and prayed for. I am an Italian layperson, and it saddens me that many denigrate the Pope and shamelessly assume the role of doctrine and morality teachers in his place.
Who sent them? In whose name do they speak? Who are those using them to demolish the Church? I have little hope that people of this kind will change their minds, but I hope and pray that at least the naive will perceive the danger and return to the fold of Peter.
I wonder what will happen in the time of secrets and what will become of these wandering souls, in turmoil and without indispensable points of reference, which are the Eucharist, the Pope, and the Queen of Peace. In one word, the Divine Will. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for allowing the publication of this comment, and I wish our brothers in the American faith a Merry Christmas.
We are under no moral or spiritual obligation to maintain unity with a pope who intentionally and malevolently sows confusion and leads people astray. Our obligation is to resist, else we become complicit.
No, you are mistaken. We denigrate the actions, the words, the deeds, the declarations, the exhortations, and the posture of the pope when he speaks, acts, declares, exhorts IN CONTRADICTION to Sacred Tradition, to Divine Revelation, and to Holy Scripture. We indignantly refuse to accept his injustices and his failure to hold to the task of passing on the Deposit of the Faith as it was handed unto him. He repel his gestures of disdain and of ridicule toward those who love the Church and its Head, Jesus the Lord Christ.
Merry Christmas, Paul.
Thank you very much, the same to you, Meiron!
I rely mostly on the following reflections of an Italian Dominican theologian, whose writings I unworthily translate.
The sad and scandalous phenomenon, recently denounced by Monsignor Fernandez, of sectarian, cunning, domineering, and partisan movements is real. These movements, under the pretext of the undeniable need for a unified thought for all believers – as expressed by Saint Paul himself – arrogate to themselves, with intolerable presumption and a gnostic attitude, the infallible possession of this absolute salvific knowledge. They go to the extent of wanting to prevail over the doctrinal authority of the Pope, attempting to correct or instrumentalize him to assert their desire for dominance over souls in the Church.
Catholics today find themselves in a dilemma. On the one hand, driven by the push of the Council, we want to be open-minded, inclusive, and welcoming towards diversity, variety, and plurality, which are riches for us and for the Church, expressions of creativity and freedom willed by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. On the other hand, we know well how Christ founded His Church as the only ark of salvation. We know that, to be saved, all men must learn and accept the message of Christ, take Christ as their only teacher. We know how Christ sent the apostles to preach the Gospel to the whole world, how the Gospel is the light of the world, and how this message is universal, understandable, and shareable by all seekers of truth.
Reason is the principle of human equality, which should not be confused with the Jacobin Enlightenment egalitarianism, denying social hierarchies and legitimate inequalities due to proportional justice or differences in merits or natural qualities. The task of our life is the free and responsible promotion of unity in diversity.
There is a forced and artificial unity, dictatorial, which is the unity of ideology: the one that claims to replace the many, the party that becomes a state, an individual among the many who wants to replace the many; the one among the many who presents itself as the only one (the so-called “single thought”), blocking and dominating the others; yes, we need a single thought, provided it is the right and universal one.
To ensure the true universality of knowledge, dogmatism is no less harmful. Dogmatism is that stubborn and obstinate mental inflexibility, often associated with shortsightedness elevated to clairvoyance, by which, under the pretext of ensuring consent and unity, the idolized leader or the dominant culture bought by the rich demands unconditional faith from all and imposes the “dictatorship of relativism.”
On the other hand, the disunited and chaotic multiplicity is a false freedom, a false pluralism, a source of endless conflicts. Plurality, to be a healthy and serene diversity, must converge towards unity and flow from unity. The community, and therefore the Church, can only be one in the variety of diversity and multiplicity. This is what the Pope meant when he said that the Church is not so much a sphere with all equal rays but rather like a polyhedron.
Thus, beyond these differences, we are all created to tend towards God and find our blessedness in Him. We are all called to salvation in Christ, obliged to obey God, and called to be part of the Church, to have, as Saint Paul says, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” We will all have to give an account to God for our actions one day.
There is an absolute, foundational, vertical, logical (of intrinsic attribution), hierarchical unity, a zero-sum game that transcends multiplicity, horizontal, contextual (historical) thought, fractional numbers, rainbow of colors,analogy of proportionality or extensiveness of thought.
This is the unity of the divine One, the universal principle and cause, the creator and provident ordainer of the manifold and diverse. But this God, Himself a Trinitarian communion, in His wisdom, omnipotence, goodness, and freedom, wants to share with Himself in a thousand and one degrees, modes, and forms the perfection of His being. He desires to have around Him a united and varied family in which He can delight as a loving, just, and merciful Father.
PAOLO, you have so many erroneous notions. Here are two: you seem to believe that we belong to the “fold of Peter”. We do not; we belong to Christ alone. Secondly, you refer to the “American faith.” There’s no such thing. We belong to the Universal Church (Catholic) founded by Christ who is its Head. Be careful.
Thank you very much, Deacon Edward. I just add a quote from St. Augustin before wishing a Merry Christmas to my brothers of faith in America:”In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.”
But, Paolo, I will remind you that there can be NO charity without truth. Attempting to impart a blessing on sinful acts might seem like charity (perverse as that is) but it is deceptive- a lie – which is contrary to charity.
Deacon, thank you very much for your politeness! I feel particularly inspired in this deep ecclesial challenge by some words of St Francis I found helpful (I’ll quote from the Franciscan Sources, and I think one can apply them in our present turmoil event).
“1. The Lord says in the Gospel: He who does not renounce everything he possesses cannot be my disciple (Lk. 14:33); 2. and: He who wishes to save his life must lose it (Lk. 9:24). 3. That person leaves everything he possesses and loses his body who surrenders his whole self to obedience at the hands of his prelate. 4. And whatever he does and says which he knows is not contrary to his [prelate’s] will, provided that what he does is good, is true obedience. 5. And should the subject sometimes see that some
things might be better and more useful for his soul than what the prelate may command him, let him willingly offer such things to God as a sacrifice; and instead earnestly try to fulfill the wishes of the prelate. 6. For this is loving obedience because it pleases God and neighbor. 7. But if the prelate should command something contrary to his conscience, although [the subject] does not obey him, still he should not abandon him.
8. And if in consequence he suffers persecution from others, let him love them even more for [the love of] God. 9. For whoever chooses to endure persecution rather than be separated from his brothers truly remains in perfect obedience for he lays down his life (Jn. 15:13) for his brothers. 10. There are indeed many religious who, under the pretext of seeking something better than what the prelate commands, look back (cf. Lk. 9:62)
and return to the vomit of their own will (cf. Prv. 26:11; 2 Pt. 2:22); 11. these are murderers who cause many souls to perish by reason of their bad example.” (n.150 in a 1977 Italian edition)
As Card. A. Dulles pointed out, “distinctions have to be made between internal dissent, private dissent, public dissent, and organized dissent…Where dissent is kept within the bounds I have indicated (…), it is not fatal to the church as a community of faith and witness. If it does occur, it will be limited, reluctant, and respectful(…)The mistaken doctrines of hierarchical teachers and of theologians can alike be considered weeds, but it is not easy, at any given moment, to discern exactly which doctrines are mistaken. For this reason it is often necessary to allow both to survive, and to pray that the Holy Spirit will give clarity of insight so that God’s truth may in the end prevail.”
In a nutshell, I think we need not public dissent, but devoted silence.
Maybe it’s time to find another church
It’s time to stay with St. Francis at the Manger in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It’s almost Christmas!
To the extent that we find a church where Francis doesn’t give the homily, well, there is nothing wrong in looking elsewhere, so long as the church is still Catholic.
Francis has tried but has not changed The RCC with Christ at its head. What has changed is the pope deriding those who love Christ as the head of the Church.
Francis and friends delude themselves if they think the church needs changing. Francis and pals may delude themselves into believing that they are the warrior-savior-renovator-reformers sent by the “Spirit” of change to cause it. Christ is still the head of the Church. CHRIST has not changed.
Francis and friends may succeed in changing weak and sinful hearts and minds; however, Catholic hearts and minds belonging to God have no truck with Francis except to recognize in him an administrative and governing sign of the church.
Far, far and far removed from governing is spiritual fatherhood. And for this we are sad. Without a visible father, with a wounded and abused mother (wounded by her own hoped-for protector), we are almost orphans. But for Mary, Joseph, and the Good and Holy Lord Jesus, we would be lost.
Who are Francis’ friends in the previous article? AD thank you.
Serendipity speaks. A short while ago, I submitted a lengthy comment on friends. When it posts, you’ll find it at Altieri’s 12/20 Analysis: “Declaration gives cover…”
Only Francis can name names. I only know that Francis has friends. At the end of the world, we’ll know and understand everything about everyone. “Time will tell.”
God put us here in this difficult time for a reason. We are the Body of Christ and members of His Church. We have a job to do which is to remain faithful and vigilant. Not to go AWOL or become a religious tourist.
Not mentioned yet, even in the criticisms of Fiducia Supplicans, is its simple failure to pass the red-face test. Shame!
How can Fernandez announce to a conflicted world that homosexual men, mostly, can continue with business as usual because his inventive “blessing” is only a half-blessing, while not also assuring red-faced girls that they’re only half-pregnant?
When is abortion not an abortion?
Or, is the Document really about “gradualism” toward at least a few de-coupled conversions? But, how does what is really a gradualist cooptation of the Church by Secularism differ from the gradualist absorption/collapse of an earlier Rome by other historic waves of squatter immigrants, also from the “periphery”?
“Individuals can be blessed, presumably with some reasonable modicum of pastoral guidance. Any rapist, pedophile, murderer, thief, or genocidal maniac that asked for a blessing upon their endeavor would be denied.”
This is Calvinism, which is heresy.
Perhaps Dr. Chapp could continue his article and turn it into a podcast series. He could find a partner, preferably with a degree from a fancy European university.
You could call it the “The Evangelical Chap Report for highly judgmental and morally superior former Catholics”
Here are some suggestions for the first four podcasts:
1) Reforming Baptism
“How to Recapture the Spirit of baptism by requiring people to conduct an examination of conscience and going to confession, before getting baptized.”
2) Understanding Grace
“Understanding that grace is for the elect, the un-elect have no grace because God does not love them, and understand that if God does not love the un-elect, it’s because they are not part of the elect.”
3) The Glory of the Reformation
“The story of John Calvin’s battle against heretics, his victory over his enemies, and how he built a Kingdom of the Justified”
4) How to Get Saved
“There are two types of people: the elect, and losers”
5) Pigs with lipstick
There two kinds of pigs. Pigs that can’t fly; and pigs with two wings and can fly–like the Fernandez invention which is both a blessing and a non-blessing.
Dear James Leiden,
I, too, wish Dr. Chapp would put a little more substance into his articles. But perhaps the fault is in me. Given I’m not a native English speaker, maybe I just lack the capacity to fully understand what he writes.
But the commenters are what I come here for. Collectively, I find them more insightful, more informative, and more knowledgeable than the solo Dr. Chapp, to be honest. They can be entertaining and funny, too. The jokes are never offensive to me. And there are hardly any fights even among those who disagree over one thing or another.
I love the people in this forum. I suppose in a way, they fill in what I find lacking in Dr. Chapp. (You should have been here when the topic was Dorothy Day!)
That said, yes, I think it would be interesting to hear Dr. Chapp through a podcast. I’d like to know his thoughts on the topic of “Actual Grace.”
(By the way, I understand most RCIA classes in the US do teach catechumens how to do examination of conscience. If that’s Calvinism, so be it. We call it “Discernment, Jesuit style.)
I wish you and all the people on this page a blessed Christmas. The Lord is here, let us come and adore Him.
Thank you Margarita for your many thoughtful and instructive comments in this thread. I greatly appreciate them.
Weren’t the Pharisees being innovative when they came up with Corban? It could be considered to be a “pastoral” response to the demands of the fourth commandment. In Mark 7 Christ took a dim view of this innovation.
Bravo! This is an excellent retort of this ridiculous Declaration. I would also ask, where does this new Declaration leave those SSA Catholics who are working hard, with the grace of God, to live a chaste life? How will they feel now? I would guess they will feel betrayed because now their struggles are being negated with this ‘new type of blessing’. It’s legitimizing sinful relationships, so what’s the point of repenting of a sinful lifestyle now, when you can be affirmed in your ‘irregular union’? More confusing, deceitful guff coming from the Vatican. Disgraceful.
Dr. Chapp’s article on the absurdity of the “non-liturgical” blessings is one of the best about the whole FS fiasco.
But if FS is a “declaration” and thus a relatively high level document, and yet is so nefarious, what are the theological implications of THAT?