In the apostolic letter Ad Theologiam Promovendam (To Promote Theology), issued by Pope Francis on Nov. 1, 2023, the Church was urged to do theology contextually: as the motu proprio put it, theology must be “fundamentally contextual…capable of reading and interpreting the Gospel in the conditions in which men and women live daily, in different geographical, social and cultural environments.”
How well does Fiducia Supplicans (Supplicating Trust), the Declaration on “blessings” issued by Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) on Dec. 18, 2023, meet that standard?
Not very well at all. Consider the “contexts” Fiducia Supplicans ignores.
The Media Context. According to the instantaneous media take on it, the Pope, in Fiducia Supplicans, authorized priests to “bless” same-sex couples, full stop — although the Declaration itself stated that such “blessings” were not to be considered liturgical, had to be spontaneously requested, involved the “blessing” of individuals, and should be conducted in such a way that the Church’s teaching on marriage as the “inclusive, stable, and indissoluble union of a man and a woman, naturally open to procreation” (as Pope Francis put it last July) was not compromised.
Cardinal Fernández subsequently complained that the fine distinctions in which Fiducia Supplicans abounded had been ignored in the initial media reporting. If the cardinal did not expect exactly that result, however, he did not reckon with the global media context in which Fiducia Supplicans would be received. And if the cardinal were truly unhappy with the way his document was being spun, why did he not re-contextualize Fiducia Supplicans (so to speak) by calling out clergy who promptly conducted same-sex “blessings” in a manner that was obviously pre-planned (not least to garner media attention), that was quasi-liturgical, and that unmistakably blurred the doctrinal and moral lines the cardinal claimed his document had drawn?
The Evangelical and Cultural Contexts. Hours after Fiducia Supplicans was issued, I received a phone call from an African archbishop, deeply concerned about the impact the Declaration would have on his local Church’s efforts to be the Church of missionary disciples for which Pope Francis had called. As the archbishop explained, the local Christian Pentecostals were aghast at Fiducia Supplicans; so were the local Muslims; and the Catholic Church’s evangelical mission had thus become far more difficult.
Did Cardinal Fernández and his DDF colleagues take that bishop’s “context” into account in crafting Fiducia Supplicans? In preparing the Declaration, did the cardinal and DDF consider the “different…geographical, social, and cultural environments” of the local Churches of the Catholic “peripheries,” celebrated by this pontificate and cited as sources of theological reflection in Ad Theologiam Promovendam? It seems not. The only ecclesiastical “context” I can discern in Fiducia Supplicans is that of the Church of Catholic Lite, clinging to the thoroughly falsified claim that appeasing the deconstructive Spirit of the Age is more evangelically effective than working to convert the Spirit of the Age by the forthright proclamation of the Gospel, hard bits (see Mark 1:15) and all.
The Synodal Context. The question of “blessing” same-sex couples was vetted this past October at Synod-2023, where the concerns raised by my African friend were discussed. If there was any consensus reached at Synod-2023, it was that the Church ought not authorize any such “blessings” — which is why the subject was not mentioned in the Synod’s final Synthesis Report. How, then, does Fiducia Supplicans reflect the synodal context in which this pontificate is so invested? What does “synodality” mean if a synodal consensus can be overridden by the unilateral act of a Curial dicastery, issued without any serious consultation with the world episcopate? What does it mean for the future discussion of “synodality” that so many individual bishops — and indeed entire episcopal conferences — have severely criticized, and in some instances repudiated, Fiducia Supplicans?
The Linguistic Context. Fiducia Supplicans is being presented as a genuine development in the pastoral practice of “blessing” those experiencing same-sex attraction, yet that “blessing” “does not validate or justify anything” (as Cardinal Fernández later told The Pillar). As the bishops of Cameroon noted, however, “blessing” signals approval of that- which-is-being blessed in any linguistic context: a commonsense observation that underscores what can only be described as the sophistry of Fiducia Supplicans.
Once upon a time, and not so long ago, the dicastery charged with the defense of Catholic truth and the promotion of dynamically orthodox theology was a source of clarification. That is no longer the case. And that will be an issue during the next papal interregnum and at the next conclave.
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.
The only development of Sfiducia Supplicans is the extension of the pastoral heresy begun in Amoralist Laetitia.
“Contextual” theology?
Hah.
That’s just another way of saying moral relativism.
Why don’t you just understand the spirit of the letter that love and not rejection is the main theme. You want to be listened to but you are not willing to listen to others and as far as the Synod goes they didn’t reject blessings just the idea that marriage is not between a man and a woman.
Mr. Lugo, you either have a very twisted vision and lifestyle of what love really is or you are caught in the fanatical infected fever of promoting all that is anti-God, anti-Church and anti-reality coming from most social activists and their supporters and financiers. Love is not rejection and, infinitely more, it isn’t the tolerance and acceptance of anything and everything, as long as the person calls it “love.” Even serial killers, rapists and pedophiles absolutely love what they do as their very personal form of “love.”
Saying we need to “listen better”, etc. because, holding on to God’s True Sacrificial Love we reject the form of sin-death false love that you and many in the Synod preach, is dark and condescending and is not love at all, just the opposite. Fiducia Supplicans loudly trumpeted traditional marriage only to hush-hush and ignore the sinfulness of homosexuality and create a most un-loving, totally-deaf-to-reality, hateful equivalency.
Bullseye, Phil.
Thank you, Deacon Peitler. All for God’s glory, the Lord who wants all of us to be saved and will shake us hard sometimes to give us better salvation odds.
Bravo, Mr. Alcoceli. Your interlocutor strikes me as a malicious troll who is either intellectually or morally disordered.
King Solomon loved and listened to his foreign wives. They turned his heart away from God.
Armando,
Sir, you are missing the optics of FS. No matter how nuanced the wording is in FS, when the public witnesses a priest giving a blessing to an “irregular” (read “gay couple”) relationship the perception will be that the Catholic Church now blesses homosexual couples. That is how they will see it and perception is reality. FS is a document from Hell. Wake up, please.
No one has a right to reject the mind of God codified in doctrine Armando. Synods of human vanity are not the superior to the mind of God any more than Adam and Evil and Satan were superior to God when they decided to partake of the forbidden fruit of their vanity. Are the effects of human conceit too much to consider?
It’s nice to see Mr. Weigel write about non-liturgical topics. 😉
His approach here is to hoist Fernández and his cabal with their own petard, and it’s very effective. It seems the Church’s “peripheries” can be overlooked when there’s a need to accommodate the sexual revolution.
Precisely!
JD Flynn at, “The Pillar” perceptively noted that a recurring theme among credibly accused sex-abusers is the psuedo-theological mixing of sexuality with mysticism and spiritual growth. Rupnik did this in his conversations with nuns. Gay priests did this with me when I was seeking God as a young man. Tucho’s writings set off so many alarm bells in my mind as I read them. He sounds just like all the groomers I’ve encountered personally and learned about from others. Why is he writing all this stuff for teens anyway? Teens need guardrails and a strong sense of why chastity is a beautiful gift, not titillation and temptation. I don’t know many (any) teens who could maturely navigate the theological word salad of Tucho’s reflections on kissing and orgasms.
Navigator,
Re. the book that was written in the ’90’s: I worked in a Catholic school during that time period & I know that any conversation like that between a faculty member & a 16 year old student would have resulted at the very least in the teacher’s dismissal, if not an investigation by law enforcement.
Yup. At its root, these folks believe that it is God’s will that they commit objectively immoral sexual sins. Hence the the gaslighting of the faithful who dare preach or teach about “sins below the belt.” For more, see:
https://newdailycompass.com/en/abuse-and-porno-mysticism-the-french-scandal-that-explains-rupnik
Mr. Weigel,
A very simple question for you: Is this Fiducia Supplicans from Jesus or the Devil?
Forget about the 5000 words of theological insanity and gibberish that your mind so many others struggle to wrestle with. As a Catholic Man, a man who publicly discourses essays and books about the Life of the Catholic Church here on earth, is this fiducia supplicans from Jesus or the Devil? Simple question to answer. And, if you reach the conclusion of your African Archbishop friend, then you will cease and desist your dialogue with the evil spirits inside the Vatican, and call them out for what they are: Church men who have become corrupted by the Spirit of the World and now are useful idiots of Satan now inside our Lord’s Holy of Holies here on earth, His Bride!
So, Mr. Weigel, I pray you will join our ranks, and be in solidarity with your esteemed Archbishop friend in Africa, as well as Archbishop Vigano, Archbishop Chaput, Bishop Strickland and so many Men of Jesus, who now are holy voices crying out in the Vatican Wilderness, “MAKE STRAIGHT THE WAYS OF THE LORD!”
JCALAS!!
we wish it were that simple. Classical Catholic discernnent of spirits recognizes the spirit of God, the spirit of evil, and the spirit of man. Man’s spirit has both the goodness of creation and the wounds of sin. And we are not attribute rashly to God or the devil what could be explained at a more basic level.
Fr. Jerome,
Under normal circumstances, your words would serve discerning some theological discussion. This isn’t about that though. Prayers for you in your priestly duties to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour!
“The sophistry of Fiducia Supplicans.”
The flaw of both modernists and conservatives in considering union lies in their failure to see it in its concrete reality and complexity. They do not approach it with a critical eye capable of distinguishing the positive from the negative, the good from the bad, the virtue from the flaw. Instead, it is considered as a whole, as if it were a single and simple entity, as if it were an abstract category or a logical predicate. The concept is treated as something simple and indistinct, which, as such, can only be either positive or negative, unable to be simultaneously a mixture of positive and negative. What is sinful cannot be lawful (conservatives), and what is good cannot be bad (modernists).
This passage fundamentally reveals the lack of a philosophical habitus in modernists or liberals and in conservatives or followers of Lefebvre. This extends to bishops, cardinals (and even former prefects of dicasteries like Müller and Sarah) who have expressed opposition to Fiducia supplicans (even going so far as to label it “heresy”). They fail to see reality in its human complexity, which is not simply good or bad but a complex mixture of positive and negative aspects. In other words, they are, in a sense, “Cartesians,” like the ultra-traditionalists who always need “clear and distinct ideas” to avoid disturbing the false tranquility of their Pharisaic conscience, which seeks to see everything simply divided into pure wheat and pure darnel.
This is not the Christian mission; it is a narcissistic vocation to differentiate oneself from others, thinking of being closer to God than the “impure,” considering themselves as wheat and not tares. It is no wonder then that the opposite reaction triumphs today in the West, embracing joyful libertinism and unlimited pleasure that rejects every sacrifice.
Paolo if I may. You have a far better ethical philosophical apprehension of FS than most. Your substantive thought is compelling. Although the issue is not the naked substance of FS, rather it’s its effect on the majority less perceptive faithful, as well as the premise that it’s the act that has ethical priority not its intention.
Father, I will not make quotations hereafter, because the learned individuals who will read, like yourself, do not need them, and others do not care about them.
I think “FS”, as did “Dominus Jesus” overcomes the dualism of “liberal” vs. “conservative” by which the media molders classify everything.
It is not half-and-half.
Modernists prioritize personal freedom, or persons, and see truth as relative to persons. They’re inclusivists, or egalitarians.
Traditionalists prioritize objective truth and exclusivism. In other words, they’re hierarchical or metaphysical.
Both are right in what they affirm and wrong in what they deny.
Throughout Christian history, the pattern has repeated itself.
There have always been the “faith alone” fundamentalists (philosophically, I’d call them religious Nominalists).
And the “reason trumps faith” liberals ( I’d call them secular Nominalists).
But also the “both-and” defenders of mainline orthodoxy (I’d call them realists).
The problem is that neither the first group nor the second one understands and recognizes that certain realities, conditions, or concrete human situations, certain relationships or interactions between people, are not abstract categories. They are not things reducible to a single concept or judgment, matters for which a categorical, clear-cut, sharp, and global judgment can be expressed without qualifications or reservations. This leads to a simplistic judgment, which, while clear in itself, does not reflect reality in its complexity and situation, thus failing to do justice to individuals in their virtues and flaws.
Consequently, while for modernists, same-sex unions are simply good with no bad aspects, for ultraorthodox individuals, they are simply bad with no good aspects. Both groups are mistaken. The Declaration of Faith and the Explanatory Note take a balanced and critically discerning stance, based on the concreteness of the human situation of those living together. They distinguish in their relationship, union, or friendship – whichever term one prefers – what is commendable from what is blameworthy, what is vicious from what is virtuous, what is evil from what is good, what is honest from what is dishonest, what should be promoted from what should be avoided, and what can be blessed from what cannot be blessed.
The inability to see the positive aspects in a sinful human relationship or an irregular union, the tendency to consider the sinner, the adulterer, or the sodomite as if they were a subsisting sin, the substantialization of sin confused with the substantiality of the person created in the image of God, a participant in divine life despite their sins – all of this is a symptom of a mistaken conception of sin and thus of evil.
It is overlooked that evil could not exist without good, illness without the organism, shadow without light, pain without well-being, redemption without glory, the damned without the saved, materialism (or rather, pseudotheism, that is, idealism) without theism. Therefore, one must indeed recognize evil, but caution must be exercised in assessing the conduct or situation or union between two individuals to avoid seeing only the evil, as if their entire being and actions were summed up in sinning, as if the two and their union were subsisting and permanent sins.
Thinking in this way is a grave falsehood and a serious offense to God, the creator of those individuals. As persons, they are ontologically, if not morally, good and therefore lovable and loved by God, even if they are in hell. The evil in them, their sin or vice or defective or irregular state, exists as a deprivation of something that should belong to them, to their union, and to their conduct. But evil only takes away a part of the good that serves as its subject and can exist only as long as this subject remains inherently good. An evil that removes the subject would nullify itself. In the cancer or Covid patient who dies of cancer or pneumonia, the cancer and infection no longer exist, but that’s because the same patient no longer exists!
A second point (but not the last) strongly emphasized in the Note is the unequivocal rejection of the accusations of heresy, blasphemy, and apology for sodomy made by many. In this regard, the Note reiterates, as the Declaration had already done, that the sexual ethics taught by the Church so far do not change. However, even in this document, the term “sodomy” never appears. It is clear that the reference to sodomy is present when speaking of sin or a life state incompatible with that approved by the Church or of relationships unsuitable for Christian ethics or irregular unions.
This reticence seems motivated by the intention to avoid a humiliating expression. On the other hand, why not call things by their name? The term “sodomy” is a clear and precise term consecrated by moral science. Does not morality, like every science, have the right to its own vocabulary? Does a doctor hesitate to diagnose AIDS or liver cirrhosis? Is there a fear of offending the patient? Is talking about sodomy considered homophobia?
Christ presented himself as a physician. Does the Christian fear facing reality, knowing that he is in the hands of a good physician? Let the modernists (liberals, or secular nominalists) – and this is very concerning – say openly that they do not want to hear about sodomy as sin, abnormality, or vice, and that they want to ascribe it as a pure and simple sexual choice like any other. However, those who read the Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) with benevolence and without ultra-traditionalist prejudices will notice that it does not entertain distortions of this kind.
If the Note had clearly reiterated the Church’s condemnation of sodomy and explained why it condemns it, it could have prevented the instrumentalization of the Declaration of Faith by modernists, as well as misunderstandings and indignant reactions from followers of Archbishop Lefebvre. The veiled and allusive language of the Note seems not to worry about scandalizing traditionalists and hides a certain human respect or fear of modernist reactions, which, as is known, dominate in the Holy Mother Church (in the Curia) in terms of number and quality.
This is unusual compared to the usual expressive manner, the maternal frankness with which the Mother Church speaks. The scandal of conservatives is not only Pharisaic scandal but also the scandal of well-intentioned brothers who have lagged behind and need to be enlightened and brought forward. Thank you for your patience in following me, Father!
You put a lot of concrete effort into this paolo. It is trying to set down its own clear-cut sharp global concrete assessment (judgment?), viz., good elements on one side and only blindness and judgment in the other side. And somehow you see yourself “not modernist” but you reassembled more vocabulary for these results including the word vocabulary. You also connect “conservative” with modernism and presumably this is allusive of your own neutrality?
My concrete position is similar to that one of this holy priest I know well.
He was recently asked what “blessing” meant to him. He opened the Gospel (Mt 13) and, without reading, said, “Blessing? It’s like sowing seeds, as it’s written here. I sow the kindness and wisdom of God with my benevolence and words. Do they fall on rocky ground? Do they fall among thorns? Do they fall on good soil? We’ll see later if hearts have been receptive or impermeable. If you don’t ‘sow generously’ (2Cor 9:6), no one will reap.”
On another occasion, he said that blessing is not approving the plans of men; rather, it is approving God’s plans for them and praying for them to be fulfilled. Remember Abraham? He was blessed, but he did not bless all his decisions. He was also reproached and had to rectify his choices. God blessed him, but his lies to Pharaoh in Egypt (Gen 12:11ss) and to Abimelech, king of Gerar (c 20), were not blessed. Furthermore, being blessed again, he had to send away Ishmael and the woman from whom he had him; he was not a child of the blessing (Gen 21:12)!”
Finally, “How do you bless these people living in morally blameworthy situations?”. He replied, “I gladly meet people who desire to be blessed by God, and I imagine it is Jesus who welcomes them. What would Jesus say to them? He would say that he died for them to love them and suffered greatly to die. He would say that he rose for them, and therefore, he can be present in their lives. This helps them understand that carrying a cross with and for him is the door to true joy and is responding to his love. He deserves it!”.
Ah! It’s not neutrality but impartiality?
His position is not actually neutral. He’s trying to argue that sin isn’t really sin.
Do you think a doctor who, after a side warning to a militant lesbian, during his professional practice, was reported (and fined) by his administration to health authorities, the judiciary, and his professional order (from which he received a reprimand, after a three-year wait to exclude a much more severe measure), can be considered a modernist?
” ,,,,, You can’t jump a jet plane, like you can a freight train ….. ”
Peter Paul & Mary – Early Morning Rain (1966)
(vinylsolution)
10,648,451 views – Oct 1, 2008
“Tonight In Person” Show (1966)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OCnHNk2Hac
Paolo, evil is in the willed act itself, not in any part of the body, evil is in the human will that decides to engage in an egregious act that knowingly offends God. When the will or rational appetite is corrupt the entire person becomes corrupt. That’s because our will reveals the person whether good or evil. God who is infinitely good is in infinite polarity to evil. Grave sin is a form of hatred of God. That’s why there needs to be a willingness to desist from practicing what offends God. Blessing an individual whose adamant in their sin does not impart grace. Prayer and sacrifice will.
I too appreciate your efforts to explain what you perceive as an act of just kindness. Unfortunately it’s the willful act that defines good or evil not the intention alone.
Dear Father,
The special blessing proposed by the two documents has a very specific purpose: it is like a specific medicine designed to cure that particular ailment. It is a blessing specifically intended for homosexuals. It is a providential act of the Holy Mother Church, which, in her mercy, takes care of the various maladies of souls.
More precisely, we must say that this blessing serves, on one hand, to strengthen their healthy energies, both personal and relational, while on the other hand, it is an aid so that, with the help of grace and continuous penitential commitment, they can at least decrease the sinful bond.
Regarding the arguments used, I understand that it may not always be easy to comprehend them. However, an honest Catholic eager to know the truth should not have this aversion to these reasonings and arguments, because the issue of homosexuals is by no means simple. It reflects a complex human situation where, as always, the positive is mixed with the negative, sin is intertwined with justice, and fragility alternates with malice.
“Blessing an individual who is adamant in their sin does not impart grace. Prayer and sacrifice will.”
The expression “state of sin” (or “adamant in their sin”) needs clarification because it has been used by some to indicate the life situation of irregular couples, as if they were in a permanent state of mortal sin, devoid of grace. Now, the Holy Father in Amoris Laetitia has clarified that such a belief has no foundation. Instead, we must believe that these couples, despite their condition as sinners, can be in grace, always, of course, provided they repent of their sins and do penance.
Therefore, we must not confuse sin with the state of sin. Care must be taken because the temptation of Pharisaism is always lurking, which is to substantialize sin by identifying sin with the sinner.
The sinner always remains a person called to salvation. Sin, on the other hand, is an accidental and contingent act that cannot be elevated to the state of substance because substance itself is permanent.
Sin is a contingent act that can be removed at any moment for another act of the sinner’s will, moved by the grace of God, which works justification. In other words, the will, from being bad, becomes good through the operation of divine grace and human free will.
Great care must be taken not to confuse homosexuality as such, which is the simple inclination of an abnormal or unnatural sexual instinct, innate or acquired, a tendency inherently devoid of any guilt, although it serves as a stimulus to sin, with sodomy, which is a vicious moral habit involving the habitual and intentional practice, therefore voluntary and culpable, of homosexual relations.
Attempting to simplify complex problems by force does not solve anything. Instead, we must have the patience to listen to the experts in the field, and particularly in this delicate moral matter, we must listen to the guidance of the Church, which Christ has specifically instituted to help us solve our moral problems, offering the assistance of our shepherds and even theologians.
Bah! Tell that fox!
I am a sinner in my own right like any one of those pan-genderists and I declare that their complexities and narcissisms are never going to be good for me and that their Pharisaical demands to be regularized and have their human complexity (Cartesianism and libertinism! and whatever label they opine) integrated, are bound to mislead me if I followed; and are not sacrifice.
Not grace paolo. You just take some vocabulary and throw it all together.
What you describe sounds like a modern version of the Pharisee practice of 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 practice.
Joe White, in one of his books, demonstrates that blessing can change hearts. An evangelical church had pastorally welcomed a gay couple with an adopted child, even though their lifestyle completely contradicted their convictions. The community is guided by Sacred Scripture and naturally condemns homosexual acts. The couple knew this but felt accepted. The community did not condemn the couple but steadfastly continued its spiritual journey and thus became a model for the couple. The two men embarked on a spiritual journey and eventually came to the realization that the only right path was the one indicated by the Bible: a life of abstinence. The couple made the decision to live chastely. At some point, they claimed to have made the best decision of their lives. This transformation of a relationship initially defined by sexuality into a friendship was made possible by the pastoral decision of an ecclesial community to treat the couple with love, without shaking the biblical foundations. This is the message that Pope Francis wants to convey to the Church.
How do you know that this is what Francis intends Paolo? It is easy to create hypotheticals that work out favorably in our storybook imaginations and ignore the hard realities that dominate the real world. When and where have you ever observed prudent considerations of why Catholic doctrine is what it is in the mind and words of Francis? Instead, he constantly vilifies doctrine as an “ideology”, oblivious to his Orwellian irony. God knows better than we do about the implications of how our lies lead to our destruction. Was Francis being “loving” in Amoris Laetitia when he rationalized that it is acceptable for a man to “discern” that starting a new family with a new woman in his concrete circumstances may be what God is asking him to do? Really? The word love is the cheapest word in any language. It requires nothing to use it. It requires everything to live it. Do theologians with myopic vision only wanting to ameliorate guilt honor God who knows us better than we know our self-deluded selves? What happened to the “love” in the victimized family in Amoris Laetitia left abandoned when Francis’ happy example of a man running off with another woman? Not one word from the love expert Francis because it’s so easy to cheapen the meaning of love if all we want to do is fantasize happy outcomes and blind ourselves to the harm we do.
Dear Edward,
here are discussed, I think, two of the most controversial points in AL.
1) At number 298 the Pope acknowledges that there are “divorced individuals living in a new union… consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous dedication, Christian commitment, awareness of the irregularity of their situation, and great difficulty in turning back without feeling in conscience that they would fall into new faults,” and that “serious reasons—such as, for example, the education of children—cannot satisfy the obligation of separation.”
In a note (number 329), he adds: “In these situations, many, knowing and accepting the possibility of living ‘as brother and sister’ that the Church offers them, note that if some expressions of intimacy are lacking, ‘it is not uncommon for fidelity to be endangered, and the well-being of the children may be compromised’ (Gaudium et Spes, 51).
Regarding this note that has attracted the attention of many, it must be said:
First: the Pope recalls the teaching of Familiaris Consortio, which asks not to live “more uxorio”, that is, in chastity, as friends and brothers and sisters.
Second: the Pope, while referring to the Council that speaks of marital intimacy, only speaks of intimacy. It is clear that in any case, it would not be marital because the two are not husband and wife.
Third: this means that even “accepting to live as brother and sister,” if it happens that they sometimes go beyond, patience must be used, and they should be encouraged to do what Paul VI says in Humanae Vitae: “And if sin still takes hold of them, let them not be discouraged, but with humble perseverance, let them have recourse to the mercy of God, which is bestowed in the sacrament of Penance” (HV 25).
This means understanding “in meliorem partem.” Giving another interpretation means that the 6th commandment prohibiting sexual relations between people who are not married to each other undergoes exceptions.
But “the negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid: they bind each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. These are prohibitions that forbid a particular action “semper et pro semper”, without exceptions, because the choice of such behavior is never compatible with the goodness of the will of the person acting, with their vocation to life with God and communion with others. It is forbidden for everyone and always to break precepts that bind, everyone and at any cost, not to offend anyone and, first of all, themselves, the personal and common dignity of all” (Veritatis Splendor, 52).
2) In paragraph 301, the Pope writes: “Already Saint Thomas Aquinas recognized that someone can have grace and charity but may not be able to exercise any of the virtues well (Summa Theologica I-II, 65, 3, ad 2), so that even possessing all the infused moral virtues, one does not clearly manifest the existence of any of them, because the external action of this virtue encounters difficulties: ‘It is said that some saints do not have certain virtues, given the difficulties they experience in the acts of them, […] although they have the habit of all virtues’ (Ib., ad 3).”
After stating that along with grace, moral virtues are also infused, Saint Thomas says: “Sometimes, due to an external difficulty, someone who possesses a habit may experience difficulty in acting, and therefore may not feel pleasure and satisfaction in the act: this is the case for someone who, having the habit of knowledge, due to drowsiness or an illness, experiences difficulty in understanding. Similarly, sometimes individuals experience difficulty in practicing the habits of infused moral virtues due to contrary dispositions left by previous acts. This difficulty does not occur equally in acquired moral virtues because through the exercise of acts, by which they were acquired, contrary dispositions were also removed” (ad 2).
And in ad 3: “It is said that some saints do not have certain virtues, given the difficulties they experience in the acts of them, for the reason mentioned above; although they have the habit of all virtues.”
Now, Saint Thomas means that some people either poorly exercise a particular virtue or do not exercise it at all (for example: devotion or concentration in prayer) due to the dispositions left by previous actions (for example: being upset or disturbed by bad news or a heated discussion. Then, as experience shows, one prays poorly, with little concentration and many distractions).
But one thing is to poorly exercise a virtue or not exercise it at all, for which there is little merit or no merit at all. Another thing is to commit a grave sin contrary to that virtue. With sin, one always loses merit and offends the Lord.
Moreover, for Saint Thomas, if a single act contrary to an acquired virtue does not cause the loss of that virtue because the act opposes the act but not the habit (so that if someone gets drunk once, it cannot be said that they have lost the virtue of sobriety), an exception would be made for lust: “But with an act of lust, chastity is lost in itself” (Sed actu luxuriae castitas per se privatur”, St. Thomas, In II Sent., d. 42, q. 1, a. 2, ad 4).
Therefore, interpreting this paragraph 301 of the Exhortation in meliorem partem, it can be said that divorced and remarried individuals, even if they live as brother and sister due to the presence of children, do not exercise chastity in the best way. But if this text were to suggest that they live in grace even if they have sexual relations, it would be completely wrong, not only contrary to the teaching of Saint Thomas but also to that of God and the Church.
Interpreted in this way, the most controversial points of the Exhortation do not pose difficulties. Many difficulties arise from a different interpretation. Finally, it should be considered that this Exhortation is entirely permeated by an atmosphere of welcome and mercy. This is the style that it was intended to have. And this should be taken into account.
About “concrete reality and complexity” and the error of tarring with a broad brush…
Nowhere does Cardinal Muller use the term “heresy” (blasphemy, yes) as you broadly accuse. https://newdailycompass.com/en/mueller-blessings-for-gay-couples-are-blasphemous
And then there’s the further question about “complexity,” whether gay blessings are separable from the broadly heretical der Synodale Weg?
The accused Cardinal Sarah seems to refer to this whole ball of wax (or wackos) when he uses the term “heresy”: “Sarah noted that the declaration ‘has not been able to correct these errors’ of the Church in Germany [!], where controversy over the Synodal Way has caused division in the Church.” https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/01/08/cardinal-sarah-speaks-out-against-clergy-blessing-same-sex-unions/
Dalmatian! These ultra-traditionalists can’t even agree to stay within the stereotype!
Dear Peter,
I summarize what I have partially already said.
The philosophical flaw I observe in the challengers of the Church’s Documents is the confusion of the substantial with the accidental. In these unions, attention is not given to the substantial, which is ignored, while the accidental is substantiated, namely, the sinful activity, to the extent of speaking of a state of sin, as if sin were not a contingent act, suppressible at the will of the sinner who can always convert, moved by God.
This ignorance of what is truly substantial in these unions leads to seeing only the sin and ignoring the positive qualities created by God, which constitute the inherent characteristics of the individuals in that relationship. This ignorance explains why many fail to understand the purpose of this blessing. If they were to reflect on the positive aspects of the union, they would understand the purpose of the blessing, which aims to enhance the good qualities and help the couple free themselves from sin. This is the essence of the speech given by Cardinal Fernandez.
Therefore, if one admits the “complexity” of their human situation, one distinguishes the positive from the negative. However, be cautious, Pietro, that those who speak of a “state of sin” claim the authority to judge consciences, along with the disbelief that these individuals can cease to sin at any time they choose, in a journey of conversion, supported by the grace of God.
The Document does not confuse at the level of moral principles. It reaffirms the traditional doctrine of the Church and does not legitimize the sin of sodomy in any way. As I mentioned earlier, what can be noted is a certain language based on implication and generality. Perhaps it would have been better to explicitly address sodomy, which unfortunately was not done. However, when the Document speaks of sin, it does not take much to understand that it also implies the sin of sodomy.
The blessing of the individual cannot be separated from the blessing of the couple. In fact, each of us does not live in isolation but always lives within some social relationship, whether it be friendship, solidarity, work, culture, or a family or marital relationship, and so on. Just as a person embodies a set of values specific to each individual, their relationship with others is an effect of those values, and at the same time, the person receives the values of the loved one.
At the same time, every human couple, even the healthiest, experiences the consequences of original sin, so sin is never absent. This sin can be sodomy or any other type. There are 10 Commandments.
Given these premises, there should be no difficulty in understanding that in the case of irregular couples, blessing the individual cannot be separated from blessing the relationship, the union, or the friendship between the two, naturally with reference to the positive aspects that need to be strengthened and the presence of more or less serious sin that needs to be eliminated.
Regarding spontaneous blessing mentioned in the Documents, it is a blessing that can be imparted by a priest or a layperson, male or female, without a ritual character according to the formulary of the Sacraments and Sacramentals. What meaning can this spontaneous blessing have? The emphasis is placed primarily on the form rather than the content. It signifies that the blessing is suitable for the particular situation of the couple with discernment that distinguishes the positive from the negative.
In a way, the blessing opens up to the mystery of the intimate souls, of their relationship with God, which has not yet reached the moral perfection of an individual and couple’s lifestyle.
Faced with Documents of this level, the duty of us Catholics is that of trusting obedience, even if challenging, based on trust in the pastoral authority of the Church, which in this case is not infallible.
Sin is sin, period. Sin should not be supported, encouraged, condoned, or blessed, at any time, for any reason. What is your real motive for trying to bless homosexuality in these convoluted posts here?
On one hand, the documents of the Holy See, such as FS, in their doctrinal aspect, assure us with certainty the unequivocality (infallibility) that arises from the participation of these texts in the Petrine Magisterium. On the other hand, they present defects, due to human conditions (excessive human respect?), especially regarding the reluctance to call things by their name and leaving them only hinted at.
Moreover, the adverse reaction to FS is precise about this (not with a broad brush): it is not just a pro-Lefebvrian type of adverse reaction. It is primarily an adverse reaction from the modernists, who claim to be pleased with FS but actually exploit it in favor of their ideology. It is also an adverse reaction from the Catholic traditionalists, in which it is certainly necessary to distinguish: on one hand, there is a pro-Lefebvrian traditionalism infected with Lefebvrian heretical ideas, and on the other hand, there is a well-intentioned traditionalism of those who have not been able to keep up with the development of doctrine and morality in recent decades (African episcopates).
Both adverse reactions, modernist and backward-looking, make it more evident how urgent a renewal in priestly formation is, to apply the doctrine of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium up to Pope Francis.
You’re a fine one to talk about VATICAN II paolo. God went down to the cities of the plain to see for Himself what the outcry against them was; and finding out, didn’t then bless them. The duty of the priest is not “to bless the couple”; nor is it “to find the good elements in it”. His duty is to counsel and admonish them to stay apart from it and be redirected.
You are setting your face rigidly against the truth and your cosmetic softness is an offense to God and men.
The irreducible difference between a relationship of friendship and its disordered sexual expression….Christ wrote a line in the sand when the Pharisees picked up the rocks for stoning, and then turning to the prostitute he also drew a line. Some would argue that there are no lines, because any unity can always be divided further into half. There’s no problem, then, about jumping from a building; but others say that the pavement is still hard. And some simply multiply words.
It’s about elevating individual vulnerabilities that possibly mitigate individual moral culpability to some individual degree, versus inventing a new category of exemption (!) from the moral law for a politicized and even militant faction already blessed by the secular powers (gay “marriage”).
So, now we have the wordy and unilateral Fernandez speaking out of both sides of his mouth–doubling down on the inventively-layered Fiducia supplicans while at the same time endorsing its total rejection by all the bishops from the entire continent of Africa.
“We can say things differently, but we can’t say different things” (St. Augustine). Stay tuned…
“Be cautious, Pietro, that those who speak of a ‘state of sin’ claim the authority to judge consciences” (Paolo). Paolo, you make a good point in the converse. A confessor priest does judge the conscience, God does. What he is obliged to do is judge manifest sinful behavior. That manifest behavior when repeated contrary to what Christ and his Church commands confirms reasonable certitude of culpability.
When a penitent wilfully engages in manifest sin that sin most often permeates his entire person inclusive of the apparent good in his life. Although there are instances when a person living in sin`may perform acts of charity that in the end may save him. Charity covers a multitude of sins. Although the Church calls him to desist from that sin as commanded by Christ.
Pope Francis in AL advises such a presumed penitent may be offered the Eucharist, whereas the Church is not equipped to judge the conscientious state of the penitent other than the manifest sinful behavior. For example, many who live in sin contribute to the poor for ulterior motives. If we as confessors were to follow your rationale for repentance there would putatively be, based on current history, far fewer conversions. What the Church is suffering in terms of numbers and apostasy is precisely due to that perceived benevolent optional approach, rather than the so called rigid posture that requires clearly given evidence of repentance. Commitment to salvation in Christ is a narrow rugged path demanding our entire heart.
Correction, A confessor priest does [not] judge the conscience, God does.
There was no reply button under the lengthy repsonse you gave to my comment, so I’ll comment here. You are wrong in your conclusions. You commit the common pastoral error of conflating mitigations of intentionality with altering the nature of a moral object. This does not work. The moral object always remains the same regardless of what is occurring in the heart, mind, and soul of an individual pursuing an objectively immoral object, whether the individual is gradually progressing in spiritual awareness or not. Understanding mitigation is nothing new. Where do you think the Western legal tradition derived the idea? Why do we have degrees of manslaughter?
Human actions, whether physical or mental, have their innate reality, whether subsequent actions might become more virtuous or less virtuous. The latter does not matter. To bless any human status with an express orientation towards human sinfulness is an inherently evil thing to do and an abomination of Christian witness that does more “concrete”, to repeat the silly fashionable word, damage to billions of the human race than to any coupling involved. A failure of Francis and Fernandez to grasp this is not surprising given their sympathetic support for process theology, the notion that even God is in the process of learning from smart theologians how to become a better God over time.
You’re being crass. To recognize objective morality for what it is does not require sanctimonious intent for the fun of it. In fact, it requires sanctimonious intent to assume that it does. Jesus was quite clear about objective morality for more reasons than the fact that malice always, not some of the time, but always results in evil consequences, even if it’s just a thought, because such thoughts diminish the soul’s resolve to resist evil in the future. Jesus knows we lie to ourselves. And the honest among us know we lie to ourselves. A lot of the time. And our lies become habitual, systematic, collective, cultural, civilizational, cataclysmic, and on grand scales, the precursors to war and other crimes against humanity. Understanding this is not a mere “pastime” of conservatives. It is cold-blooded reality that only cowards, fools, and degenerates seek to avoid understanding by creating phony dichotomies to take refuge in a non-existent rhetorical middle.
no, the errors I see are with its misrepresentation of the development of doctrine, and a divorce of doctrine and practice, and a rupture between liturgy and piety masquerading as a distinction
Thank you.
Bud Lite: Gay or transgender
Catholic Lite: Gay or transgender.
A quote from Pope Francis: “The divine Word is Jesus’ response to the temptation of the devil”
Yes, we search the divine word for its stance on homosexuality. It gives us the proper response to the Devil’s latest work, called “Fiducia Supplicans”
“BACKWARDISTS” be damned! Full speed ahead!
From sexual abuse, to textual abuse (Amouris Laetitea, 2016), to Ad Theologium Promovendam(n) and Fiducia Supplicans (both 2023)…
Drum-major Fernandez unilaterally offers fine-grained/falsified mercy to coupled pairs, whilst behold, two-by-two the petitioners and the media interpret coveted validation of the homosexual lifestyle!
As politicians might be asked by all “what is your agenda?”, now Hegelian theologians ask of us all, “what is your context?” And, the theologians themselves upstage, rather than serve and develop, the divinely-revealed context: the perennial Deposit of Faith (and the Apostolic Succession as more than “facilitators”). Instead, a conglomerate flea-market of contexts, cheaper by the dozen! Not ye olde “liberation theology,” but now even broader Calibration Theology!
So too, now is a polyhedral/ conglomerate Church to be annexed (!) by the movement? Paraphrasing Marx/Engles (1848): “FORWARDISTS of the world, unite!”
Pope Francis needs to resign or I’m leaving to the Orthodox as a emergency concession. Apparently I don’t hold the same Faith as this Pope and I have an impasse when he is mentioned during the Canon like we are unified in our Faith. I can’t do that as bad as things under this pope have gotten.
“Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” still applies–and it applies to you and me as well as everyone else. You think the Orthodox hold fast to the faith? Why don’t you ask the Orthodox what their official teaching is on contraception? Answer: they don’t have one. They’re all over the map. Some say it’s perfectly okay. Others that it’s perfectly not okay, but no one is empowered to decide the issue. So much for the Orthodox.
I recall being surprised when I read that the Orthodox Churches do not distinguish mortal sins from venial sins.
Re God’s Fool above (Jan.10, 08:52) – Thanks for this reference.
Explains a lot.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/what-is-a-blessing-1172 – Blessing as meant to bring forth sanctification …not validating / justifyig existing weaknesses …and persons who come to ask for same, very likely also intending same …one good to come from blessing could be – persons moved to explore and pray about generational spirits that have led to their afflictions , thus to be of aid to families whose ancesrors, by oaths to powers of evil in belonging to secret societies could also be helped ; same for immorality in family lines .
The regret expressed by the Cardnl about the book issue – likely from the clearer awareness over the years, about the need for greater role of The Spirit for issues in the carnal realm and in having compassion for those who struggle , to invite them to persevere in trust to ask for The Light of holiness as His mercy – the fruit of contemplating His Passion , as granted through the Eucharistic Miracle of Argentina .
May the blessing issue aid in deeper look in The Church as a whole, to bring forth more powerful, speedy and effecive help in all these areas !
What do we expect? It is the end times! The antichrist has almost banished God from the Vatican and from many countries’ governments including the US where anti Christian puppet masters have almost erased every evidence of the Christian country that it once was.
But many of us will stand even stronger with the Catholic Church because the Pope is not the church, the Vatican is not the church, we faithful Catholics are the church, even if is just a handful at the end awaiting the Lord’s return. Let’s pray for everyone’s salvation including the non Catholics frequenting the Catholic comment sections 🙏
Dear Mario, an excellent, honest, Christ-serving, & hence truly contextual analysis.
“Because you have kept My commandments to endure trials, I will keep you safe in the time of trial, which is going to come for the whole world, to test the people of the world.” [Beloved Apostle John’s Revelation – chapter 3: verse 10]
Perseverance is much assisted by our dwelling with loving obedience in the Apostolic, Holy Spirit-inspired New Testament; and following Jesus’ encouragement to ask Father God for MORE of The Holy Spirit, to counsel us and comfort us in our distress.
Ever seeking to hear & obey King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
This is the action we need to get
https://www.fromrome.info/2023/12/28/on-the-rebuke-and-deposition-of-a-heretical-pope/
https://www.fromrome.info/2023/10/19/the-provincial-council-of-sutri-dec-20-23-1046-a-d-and-its-importance-for-the-church-of-today-video/
Sorry to say paolo you are the victim of your own casuistries and mental conditioning.
You also conform circumstances into the traps they already are and trap yourself on them as if everything must be so because it is so and mercy has no alternative.
If anything AL does NOT address telling people to separate as and when they should including and especially because of the presence of children.
Once that is admitted, it then enters to have to deal with the children responsibly. Yet you -and AL- persist in elevating irregularities.
As if once something is “status quo” it matters in justice. Then why is it irregular?
Why do you call it concrete?
You have the added fault (and habit) that if someone told you a right answer you would rework it into your errors “because the doctor can’t be a modernist after all”.
The message of Fatima: notwithstanding high and convoluted philosophies, let’s be humble enough to reread the message of Our Lady of Fatima given to the three shepherd children for the entire world over a century ago.
The problem it seems is the family, the nucleus of Christian faith and potential place of inculcation and nurturing of grace and holiness.
The truth needs to be proclaimed not relativized. This way the world stands to gain. People should not be encouraged to remain in sin. It doesn’t matter whether this is done subtle and insidious ways.
The world is waiting for the truth that tends to be eclipsed unnecessarily. Christ was forthright in fidelity to the mandate from His Father. The early Christians gave their all to this mandate. The fruit was tremendous.
The gospel need not be compromised. The sciences – social or otherwise – when properly done, can only amplify the truth in the light of contemporary contexts. Faith cannot antagonize reason and vice versa when we are humble enough to seek Divine Illumination in scientific research.
God is the author of science as well and everything therein is meant to divulge the incredible beauty of God.
Let’s be kind and bold enough to let those inclined to sinful acts – irregular unions or same sex attractions for insurance – that the Church loves them but cannot bless sins in any way. What is needed both now and at all times is conversion from that state to that of holiness of life. God does withhold His mercy and grace to those who genuinely seek Him.
Corrections: done by subtle and insidious ways
The gospel needs not be compromised
instance, not insurance
know that the Church loves them
God does not withhold His mercy and grace