ACI Prensa Staff, Jan 22, 2024 / 18:00 pm (CNA).
Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo, president of the Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM), recently recounted step by step how the rejection of the blessing of homosexual couples was handled on the African continent and at the Vatican.
In a recording of an interview posted on the French lay Catholic blog Le Salon Beige, the cardinal explained what happened in Africa after the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), headed by Argentine Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, published the declaration Fiducia Supplicans, which allows the blessing of same-sex couples and couples in irregular situations.
Reactions in Africa
“When on Dec. 18, we received the document Fiducia Supplicans, signed by the prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and co-signed by His Holiness Pope Francis, it caused a shockwave in Africa. We didn’t understand what was happening at the Church level. Furthermore, other churches that called us said: ‘We count on the Catholic Church to oppose this ideology. Now, you are the first to authorize the blessing of homosexual couples.’”
“All of you, all of you, have suffered for this. A lot. Everyone has suffered for this,” the cardinal lamented.
“The reactions began. And with all responsibility, I wrote to all the episcopal conferences of Africa and Madagascar,” continued Ambongo, who is also the archbishop of Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
“The episcopal conferences wrote. I printed all the reactions from all the episcopal conferences. I made a synthesis in a document,” he said.
Ambongo said he then wrote a seven-page letter to Pope Francis not only as president of SECAM but also as “his adviser, member of the council of the nine cardinals who accompany the pope for the reform of the Church.”
He then traveled to Rome to meet with the pontiff, telling one of his private secretaries why he came and giving him all the documentation he had gathered: the reactions of the episcopal conferences, the synthesis, and his personal letter.
That same day the Holy Father received him: “The pope was very sad,” Ambongo said. “I must say that he was the first to suffer from all the reactions that came from all over the world. He suffers for it because he is a human being. This doesn’t make him happy.”
“I reached an agreement with him because I told him that the solution to this issue is no longer to send us documents with theological or philosophical definitions of blessings. The people are not interested in that. What is of interest now is a communication that reassures the people in Africa, that calms the spirits of the faithful. And he, as a pastor, was touched by this situation,” the African cardinal continued.
Working with Fernández
The Holy Father put Ambongo in contact with Fernández, who agreed to work with him the next day at the DDF, “the most important dicastery from the point of view of the Catholic faith.”
“With the prefect, myself in front of the computer, a secretary writing, we prepared a document,” Ambongo said. “And we prepared the document in dialogue and agreement with Pope Francis, so that at every moment we called him to ask him questions, to see if he agreed with that formulation, etc.”
When completed, Ambongo said, “I signed the document as president of SECAM on behalf of the entire Catholic Church in Africa. And the prefect of the dicastery signed it, not the document that was made public, but the document that we keep in the archives. The document is titled ‘No to the blessing of homosexual couples in the Catholic Churches.’”
The cardinal clarified that, although the text appears to have been signed in Accra, Ghana, the headquarters of SECAM, in reality, he said, “I signed it in Rome.”
“This is to express our position today in Africa and we do it in a spirit of communion, of synodality with Pope Francis, and with the prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith: In Africa there is no place to bless homosexual couples. Not at all,” he stressed.
On Jan. 11, SECAM published a five-page statement stating: “The Episcopal Conferences of all Africa, which have strongly reaffirmed their communion with Pope Francis, believe that the extra-liturgical blessings proposed in the declaration Fiducia Supplicans cannot be carried out in Africa without exposing themselves to scandals.”
Individual blessings
Ambongo also stressed that, although Africa opposes the blessing of same-sex couples, it is necessary to “respect homosexual people because they are human beings. We should not look at them, treat them with contempt. They are creatures of God. And as creatures of God, if an individual homosexual asks for a blessing, we bless the person. We can bless him as a person.”
After noting that criminals can also be blessed, the cardinal pointed out that these blessings for individual persons are given “in the hope that the grace of the blessing can help them convert. And if we bless a homosexual, it is also to say that ‘your sexual orientation is not in accordance with the will of God and we hope that the blessing can help you change because homosexuality is condemned in the Bible and by the magisterium of the Church.’”
“We cannot be promoters of sexual deviation. Let them do it in their homes, but not in ours,” he said.
Marriage, family in Africa vs. the West
Ambongo also lamented that currently in “the West, since they don’t like children, they want to attack the basic cell of humanity, which is the family. If you destroy the family, you destroy society.”
The cardinal lamented that now in the West the meaning of marriage has also been lost and culture “is in decline,” something that also affects the economy. “Little by little, they are going to disappear. They will disappear. We wish them a good demise,” he continued.
The cardinal also denounced the action of international organizations such as the U.N., UNICEF, and the World Health Organization, among others, which condition their financing on the promotion of gender ideology, which does not recognize the natural sexual difference between men and women.
“However, our culture in Africa is not like that. Yes, we have many defects, but we cannot be reproached for homosexuality. You can find isolated cases, like those in Uganda,” he said, but “society doesn’t work that way. That practice does not exist among us.”
This story was first published by ACI Prensa, CNA’s Spanish-language news partner. It has been translated and adapted by CNA.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
We read: “I signed the document as president of SECAM on behalf of the entire Catholic Church in Africa. And the prefect of the dicastery signed it, not the document that was made public [?], but the document that we keep in the archives. The document is titled ‘No to the blessing of homosexual couples in the Catholic Churches’[plural?]”
So, what’s immoral in the continent of Africa need not cohere with whatever incontinence prevails in the other synodal continental geographies? Fernandez gets his checkerboard Church in the name of diversity, largely because of infectious “non-synod” from Germania.
And the Hinduization of the Catholic Church [singular] continues apace, while “walking together.” A differential Calculus approaching zero, and yet there’s this from Benedict XVI:
“An understanding of freedom is wrong if it would see as liberating simply an ever-wider loosening of norms and the constant extension of individual freedoms in the direction of total liberation from all order. Unless it is to lead to lying and self-destruction, freedom must relate to truth [!], that is to say, to what we actually are, and must correspond to this [universal] nature of ours [….] Liberation consists, not in gradually getting rid of law and norms of behavior, but in purifying ourselves and purifying those norms, so that they make possible that coexistence of freedoms which is appropriate to man [….] If there is no truth about man, then he has no freedom. Only the truth makes us free” (Ratzinger/Benedict, “Truth and Tolerance,” Ignatius 2004, p. 256-258).
In Africa, only recent settlements of local Churches are recorded, following a long period of missionary work (only with John XXIII and the processes of decolonization and the formation of independent African states in the 1950s). Dioceses with indigenous clergy were established as a result.
Furthermore, this episcopate directly stems from the episcopate that participated in the Council. The most significant characteristic of these Churches is perhaps that they are young Churches, lacking a long tradition, unlike us Europeans who possess a tradition that could be considered a true conservatism or backwardness.
The Pope mentioned difficulties in accepting the application of the Second Vatican Council (FS) due to a different culture. The Pope probably referred to indigenous cultural precedents, which likely still influence these very young Churches.
At the same time, it can be imagined that these ancestral cultures lack the sense of progress characteristic of our Christian and European history.
An important phenomenon of change and progress in the ecclesial climate with the advent of the Second Vatican Council was, for example, the shift among Thomists.
The Thomist school – quoting an Italian Dominican, Father G. Cavalcoli – faced with the renewal of Thomism proposed by the Council, brought forth certain tendencies that can be essentially classified into three.
The first tendency consists of the reaction of a Thomism that did not embrace the new way of following St. Thomas and remained attached to preconciliar scholasticism. These could be called backward Thomists. This type of Thomism has been adopted by followers of Archbishop Lefebvre and is still flourishing today.
Another tendency that developed is one that understood the value of the new way of being Thomist, involving the incorporation of modern values without falling into modernism. Here, we could mention the names of Maritain and Congar. These could be called progressive Thomists.
A third group is made up of Thomists who, in their engagement with modernity, ended up contaminating the thought of St. Thomas with the errors of modernity. Here, we can mention the names of Schillebeeckx and Rahner. These could be called modernist Thomists.
A special case is that of the Servant of God Father Tomas Tyn, who accepted the conciliar directives, rejected preconciliar scholasticism, and established a Thomism aimed at recovering doctrinal values that risked being forgotten with the spread of modernism, appreciating modern thought, especially in terms of scientific thinking.
This post is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. The African churches made a simple, straightforward decision to honor biblical truth and centuries of church teaching and tradition by rejecting blessing gay couples and homosexual relationships. Plain and simple, and the correct decision.
There is always a positive side, no matter what Descartes may say. The regrettable lack of clarity in Fiducia supplicans (which in no way implies doctrinal error, unthinkable in a document that, like this one, depends directly on pontifical authority) has had, at least for now, a salutary effect: it has revealed the “backward-looking traditionalism” (which does not fall under “healthy traditionalism”).
And I refer to the “backward-looking” stance of laypeople, priests, bishops, episcopal conferences, and even cardinals, who have been exposed in recent years (especially since 2007) to the harmful influences of the FSSPX, becoming, for the most part, backward-looking with a clear Lefebvrian profile.
Undoubtedly, the modernist party is the one that has caused the most damage to the Church in recent decades. But since December 18, 2023, the damages caused by Lefebvrianism in the Church have also become evident.
(They fail to perceive the mature judgment with which same-sex couples are considered, based on modern knowledge of sexual psychology, which enlightens us that many of these individuals act not with full deliberation but under the influence of an innate inclination of their psyche.
Some are of the opinion that individuals can be blessed individually, but not their union if it is irregular. However, here we are dealing with two specific individuals who are in a relationship with each other. The crucial point to consider is that the grace of the blessing obviously touches the healthy aspect while guarding against sin.
It is important to keep in mind that the irregular couple remains a couple in human nature, endowed with its own moral conscience, which, despite the reality of sin, retains a dignity derived from the Creator, who also extends His blessings to them. Thus, here is the foundation and the reason for the blessing imparted by the Church, which in no way signifies approval or endorsement or tolerance for a lifestyle that contradicts the divine plan of creation. On the contrary, it provides strength and hope for a gradual normalization of their situation.)
As Pharisaism was the main enemy of Jesus, ultimately leading to His death, could it be that Pharisaism will also be the Church’s ultimate enemy? In my humble opinion, although there are many reasons for this rejection of FS within and outside the Church (Lefebvrists who talk about FS because they believe they are part of the Church), this rejection is not only the vice of the past, but also of the modernists. By Pharisaism, I mean that presumptuous attitude of feeling superior to others, with the intention of always looking good, while lacking true love for God and for brothers.
I must admit and confess that there was a time when I had issues with Pope Francis and a good part of the shepherds.
I realized that the media often instrumentalize the Holy Father, and judging is wrong, as is murmuring.
We must pray.
Benedict XVI had already taught me how to do this, offering immediate obedience to his successor.
I am not a theologian, just a confused life long Catholic, a senior citizen.
1) Was the Vatican and the Pope so out of touch with the Church in Africa that they did not anticipate its reaction to Fiducia?
2) Is morality culturally determined? It seems here that it is- that blessing sin is wrong in Africa, but acceptable in the West? The pope and Frenandez appear to accept the cultural argument while not acknowledging that blessing sin is wrong. And if it is wrong, it is wrong for the entire Church.
3) What is the purpose of a blessing? to affirm someone’s behavior? to encourage repentance? Can a person deliberately continuing to live in sin (NOT an “irregular situation”, please) actually receive grace from a blessing? Why give blessings to these individuals? We have always prayed for the conversion of sinners. That seems the more appropriate response.
Pope Francis seems to be saying that 2 ways FS and not-FS can harmoniously coexist in the Church with appropriate measures of collaboration arising through understanding. Presumably he means to underline that this is found and justified through prayer.
If FS is wrong, it would not be possible to to have it both ways. Bishop Conferences could end up splitting just on this. Did Ambongo give it a proper weighing?
On paolo’s topic of “shift”; I see nothing in VATICAN II where “the Council proposed a renewal of Thomism” nor an acknowledgment of “a shift among Thomists”. His (her?) 3 classifications are not of the Council and may not reflect reality correctly either; even distort reality.
Again paolo, who is suggesting that local circumstances would allow a normalization of FS, apparently moreso when there is “no developed local tradition”. But that is not Thomism and is not VATICAN II. What the basis for it would be, is unknown. Even when a young Church “lacks local tradition” she is still subject to the Universal Church.
It is this universal character that so far is not satisfied. What Ambongo did here could have been done innocently to avoid an air of division; but it does not resolve anything and if the error is serious, brotherly accommodation made into “something official” or “apostolic” would merely be plunging straight to scandal.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-zen-warns-of-error-in-fiducia-supplicans-calls-for-fernandez-to-resign/
LGBT people are God’s children and worthy of God’s love. Who are we to judge?
LGBT people are sinners who need to repent or face divine judgment, just like the rest of us. Condoning that behavior is deeply sinful. Believers have a moral and spiritual responsibility to call a spade a spade. People’s eternal destinies hang in the balance.
We are not judging.
The Church is urging them to repent and be saved.
What kind of love would we be expressing if we approved of their sin and failed to teach them the commandments of God?
Sin is not sinful only because it is forbidden by God. It is forbidden by God because it promotes misery and death.
It’s expressly because He loves us so much that God wants us to repent. Everyone of us.
God commands us to be sane and make judgments. A good definition of insanity is the notion that you can go through life without making judgments, especially judgments of the behavior of everyone around you. This obviously includes judgments about intrinsic right and wrong in human behavior.
I wish LGBT people were more cognizant that the unborn, whose slaughter the vast majority of them support, are God’s children too.
“Go and sin no more.”
Our issue is not precisely what interpretation of St Thomas Aquinas is followed. It is the truth of the issue, the duality of FS that if one proposition is promoted, the blessing of homosexual couples [or individuals in some instances] as persons rather than their sexual preference, the other proposition remains intact, that is, homosexual couples being blessed.
There must be a desire for the couple or person to repent. As Card ambongo suggests in his statement. Although, placing the decision of Ambongo and African bishops in context of a new, culturally deficient culture as His Holiness and Card Fernández suggest, may be seen as prejudice in favor of a more accepting progressive culture, for example the more advanced European which has, except for Holland, Hungary, and Poland accepted FS. Consequently we have formation of a policy that permits fragmentation of the Christian message of moral behavior. Evil, if sanctioned in any conceivable pastorally accepted form sends a universal message that the Catholic Church finds homosexual behavior acceptable.
Having served in Africa on two different occasions decades apart bishops, the culture in general was adverse to homosexual behavior for practical reasons, considering the terrible outbreaks of Aids, and spiritual, insofar as their conversion was Christ centered, as revealed, not that Christianity subject to the development of traditions that considered presumed scientific findings that suggest change in thought on homosexual inclination. Inclination here is a willful cultivation, a privation of direction of our natural sensual desire away from its due end as ordained by God. It is always, and in any circumstance a deviation from the good toward an evil end and must be taught with absolute clarity because it defiles what God ordained as a sacred familial relationship between a man and a woman.
Francy above – fellow non-theologian here – good questions.
I recommend Jeff Mirus, “The most troubling aspect of FS”, Catholic Culture, Jan. 9, 2024.
The lead in this story is buried. This is the part of the story that contains the most startling, most disturbing information:
* * *
“Ambongo also lamented that currently in ‘the West, since they don’t like children, they want to attack the basic cell of humanity, which is the family. If you destroy the family, you destroy society.’
“The cardinal lamented that now in the West the meaning of marriage has also been lost and culture ‘is in decline,’ something that also affects the economy. ‘Little by little, they are going to disappear. They will disappear. We wish them a good demise,’ he continued.
* * *
That a faithful Catholic Cardinal in Africa wishes the rest of the Church “a good demise” is both shocking and, under the circumstances, perfectly understandable.
Allow me to be the first to suggest that this article be rerun when it is time to discuss the legacies of Pope Bergoglio and his allies in the children-hating Democratic Party.
I note that the cardinal denounces international organizations including the U.N. and the World Health Organization for making developmental aid conditional on the promotion of gender ideology.
Many thanks for the tip, Cleo.
Further thoughts.
After reflecting on my earlier comment about the cardinal’s denunciation of the UN and WHO’s making aid conditional on ideological compliance, I thought I’d strayed slightly off topic.
But no. It seems I wasn’t so far off after all.
See Anne Hendershott, CWR, Jan. 23.
Francy – Anytime.
“We wish them a good demise”. These words should give us pause.
Both Cardinal Ambongo and Cardinal Sarah have taken great pains to avoid the appearance of a break with Pope Francis.
Cardinal Sarah is more forthright about the role of Africa vis a vis the “enlightened” West/ern Church.
Who are we fooling? God’s teaching authority on earth can get it wrong in matters of faith and morals AND it doesn’t make our Mater et Magistra any less One, Holy, Catholic or Apostolic. Why? These actions and statements aren’t infallible ordinarily or extraordinarily. FS is the heretical teaching of a pope, a dicastery head & many western bishops. It is fallible teaching.
Our Church family history is filled with examples; Our first pope got it wrong concerning meat sacrificed to idols & was corrected at the so called council of Jerusalem.
I’m also thinking of Honorious w Monothelitism. The Aryan bishops & popes who gave it tacit approval. Alexander VI’s children and the bishops in attendance who blessed his unions. All the bishops of England save Fisher who signed the Oath of Succession. Need we cite more examples?
In the modern age, the German and Austrian bishops who, before Hitler’s rise to power, had condemned national facism and did not allow its members admittance to Holy Communion – only to change course and literally bless the Nazis – once Hitler came to power.
Or, during the pandemic: US bishops were paid off in the form of forgivable PPP loans to silently bless the 2-year shuttering of our churches all the while grocery & liquor stores, Home Depot & Lowes were allowed open. Would you shut off the Sacraments for hundreds of millions of Benjamin’s?
Or, would you bless and give Holy Communion to a president who signs executive orders for abortion directives?
Our bishops have shown themselves quite capable of formally blessing sin.
Cardinal Fernandez is engaging in classic casuistry where you build an entire false morality around an isolated case. He is cut from the same cloth as the “dissenters”; McCormick, O’Brien and all the infamous dissenters would say in the first paragraph of their books abortion is licit only to contradict themselves in the next paragraph. US Bishops regularly blessed these dissenters as they chaired theology depts at Loyola and other Catholic universities.
Fiducia Supplicans doesn’t cite scripture or the catechism or any document saying homosexual actions are intrinsically disordered. While we are on the topic of Church manipulations it must be noted that the Roman lectionary is also organized to skip over most of the scriptures condemning sodomy. Likewise, F.S. is completely engaged in normalizing homosexual acts.
At least half of my brother priests suffer from SSA and in religious orders the percentage is much higher. Many strive to be chaste and are responsible for much pastoral ministry. However, FS is simply an internal memo providing a wink and nod to those men who prefer communal form of self pleasure.
I’ve heard the confessions of & ministered to those suffering w SSA for over 2 decades. Those suffering from this disorder are appalled by the pope’s face value blessing of sodomy.
If this truly was a declaration on the development of pastoral theology it would speak the truth in love.