ACI Prensa Staff, Jan 26, 2024 / 05:30 am (CNA).
“I am not going to bless even one homosexual union,” said the archbishop of Granada, Spain, José María Gil Tamayo, when asked about the application of the declaration Fiducia Supplicans on the pastoral meaning of blessings, published in December by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF).
In a meeting with journalists held on the feast day of St. Francis de Sales, the patron saint of journalists, Jan. 24, Gil stated that his intention is to “bless the person” without having to do “a ceremony,” according to Europe Press.
The prelate read a statement expressing the position of the archdiocese regarding Fiducia Supplicans and said that, “in communion with Pope Francis, he will proceed with respect to nonliturgical pastoral blessings with a pastoral meaning, faithfully observing what the Holy See indicated in the Fiducia Supplicans declaration and in the subsequent explanatory note.”
This manner of proceeding will be carried out “with painstaking respect for the unalterable doctrine of the Church on true marriage and irregular unions, avoiding all confusion and seeking the good of the faithful,” the statement concludes.
According to the Europa Press report, during the conversation with the media Gil added that he is not going to participate in campaigns framed in terms of being “for or against” the pontiff.
The Spanish bishops on Fiducia Supplicans
Several Spanish bishops have spoken out since the publication of the Vatican document on the pastoral meaning of blessings. The first to do so was the bishop of Orihuela-Alicante, José Ignacio Munilla, who summed up the document as not containing heresies but whose application, he predicted, will be “chaotic.”
Munilla subsequently determined that in his diocese any request for a blessing by homosexual or other couples in an irregular situation should be in consultation with the vicar general, “until a correct praxis is consolidated, or, where appropriate, until a possible publication of diocesan guidelines.”
The bishop of Almería, Antonio Gómez Cantero, defended the declaration as “very precise” and encouraged “reading the entire document” before issuing opinions on the matter. Furthermore, he explained that he has already blessed homosexual couples in the past.
The archbishop of Oviedo, Jesús Sanz, has spoken on several occasions about the document. Most recently on social media he called Fiducia Supplicans “demagogy that twists the Christian tradition and the magisterium of the Church.”
What is the Fiducia Supplicans declaration?
The Fiducia Supplicans declaration on the pastoral meaning of blessings is a document published by the DDF on Dec. 18, 2023, and signed by Pope Francis; the DDF prefect, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández; and the secretary of the doctrinal section, Father Armando Matteo.
Its contents drew various reactions from numerous bishops and episcopal conferences, sometimes eliciting a cautious reception and other times pointed criticism, such that the DDF published a note on Jan. 4 in order to “help clarify the reception of Fiducia Supplicans.”
The note emphasizes that the declaration is neither “heretical” nor “blasphemous” and that bishops cannot prohibit pastoral blessings. It also recognizes the particular situation of some countries, particularly in Africa, and offers guidelines for distinguishing between liturgical and pastoral blessings.
On Jan. 11, the Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM) published a document, with the endorsement of Pope Francis and Fernández, which concludes that it would be imprudent to apply Fiducia Supplicans in these countries.
Two days later, Pope Francis responded during a meeting with the priests of the Diocese of Rome “to questions about the blessing of same-sex couples, stating that it does not change the doctrine on the sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman. Persons are blessed, not sin.”
On Jan. 15, during a television interview, Pope Francis urged critics to raise their doubts: “When decisions are not accepted, it’s because they are not understood. When you don’t like it, go talk, ask your questions and have a fraternal discussion,” he said.
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.
Pope Francis invites a “fraternal discussion” while Cardinal Parolin suggests the need for an “investigation:” https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/01/13/cardinal-parolin-fiducia-supplinas-has-touched-a-very-sensitive-point/
So, let’s get on with a harmonized “fraternal investigation”! Participants can include all of Africa, plus Poland, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Peru, and part of France and now parts of Spain.
Asia, Africa, Europe and South America, four of the continents assembled in the continental Synod 2023! (also less vocal: the “cautious” North America, the Middle East, and Oceania).
The global continents versus Germanic incontinence?
But with the seven continental synods, why pray tell do we still omit the continent of Antarctica???
Perhaps because in moral theology nothing can be BOTH black and white, and down under, so to speak, we happen to see some 20 million penguins synodally “walking together.”
And in response to their God given penguin sense of natural law no less.
“The global continents versus Germanic incontinence?”
“Sorry, dear Peter D. Beaulieu, the ‘pope’ says: “FS same-sex blessings are only opposed by a few small ideologue groups; with Africa as a special case.”!!!
R. R. Reno, the editor of ‘First Things’ gives a correctively truthful account:
♦ During the week before Christmas, Rome issued Fiducia Supplicans, a woolly-headed document about blessing same-sex couples. Anything remotely resembling a marriage blessing is streng verboten. But it’s OK to use exquisitely refined pastoral judgment sometimes, in some circumstances, to bless same-sex couples. The document strikes a clear note: Nothing can be blessed that is counter to God’s will. But one wonders: couples? We’re not talking about tennis partners. Confusion mounts. Two homosexuals united in a relationship can be blessed as couples, but not as sexual partners? One predicts that Fr. James Martin, Catholicism’s leading Rainbow collaborationist, will jump into the confusion to provide clarification. Indeed, within hours of the release of the document, he offered a blessing to a same-sex couple, helpfully (for his purposes) photographed by the New York Times. They are holding hands, heads bowed, as Fr. Martin makes the sign of the cross. No, no, he was not blessing their sexual relationship! That can’t be done, the Vatican assures us. Except, of course, when it is done, which seems to be the obvious consequence of the document, and possibly its intent.
Lies & intrigue, with a diabolical intent. . .
The fact is that Pontiff Francis has created confusion and division in the Body of Christ. About that there can be no doubt.
Dear Deacon Edward: “confusion & division” for sure, but from the viewpoint of the PF coterie it’s all for a necessary cause, as an essential first step towards the normalization of their demonic desire to legitimize ‘informal’ blessing of homosexual relationships among the clergy: deacons, brothers, priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals & pope.
These ecclesial peers want it hot & appear to be on a slippery slope to eternity in a really hot place. Enjoy, enjoy . . !
Ever in the love of Christ Jesus; blessings from marty
“When decisions are not accepted, it’s because they are not understood”.
How can you have a dialogue when the decision has already been made, presumably without your input because you are just too dense to get it?
And he shouldn’t because Fiducia Supplicans forbids it!!! Pope Francis wouldn’t allow it.
Is anyone actually reading this document before they accuse??
Is anyone actually disciplining James Martin for blessing a homosexual couple?
Please don’t tell us Francis wouldn’t allow it. He already has. And he’s doing absolutely nothing to discipline those who bless couples in “irregular” unions, nor to prevent them from doing so.
Do not be fooled. This, and the confusion it fosters, is by design.
The ink didn’t even dry and Martin was blessing gay couples. The rag New York Times covered it. I won’t hold my breath waiting for disciplinary action to come anytime soon.
As the African Bishops pointed out, when the “allowable” blessing is so marginally different than outright approval, it is a GIVEN that many will not understand the subtle difference.It is splitting hairs. It does not matter WHAT the pope “intended”. Or wrote. He didnt have any reason to make this statement to begin with, which is causing massive division within the church. To placate and seeming to give approval to a handful of folks living in sin is actually NOT a good reason. Further, in places like Africa where laws on homosexuality are heavily influenced by Muslim belief, the penalty for such activity is often DEATH. This puts the church in a place of seeming to defend what is culturally unacceptable there on every level. That can only make the church an even bigger target than it is now.
It does no such thing.
Patrice, don’t be misled.
What Tucho and Bergoglio say in the document is window dressing.
Think about it. When Catholics see gay “couples” being blessed by a priest, they are going to conclude that the Church is now blessing gay couples. Because, quite frankly, it is.
They’re not going to know about — or care about — what the document says.
Bergoglio knows this, of course. So he doesn’t mind paying lip service to Catholic beliefs, all the while continuing his efforts to undermine them.
Yes, did you? The only thing FS excplicitly forbids is respect for and fidelity to Catholic doctrine. Read paragraph 25 carefully.
How the adorable Heart of the Beloved is wounded! This is not about persons but about unions or couples, like the palm and the fingers are the coupling that is the hand, distinct yes, separated or otherly, no and never.
Ones intent or intending cannot make the hand or couple-union only a person/s nor the hand only the palm or fingers, no the created reality is a unity, distinct but indivisible, not two or separated…much like the Beloved Himself three but always One and Indivisible, one and never separated. Blessings 🌹 Console Jesus and Mary, may they make us true
Homosexualists want you to confirm for them that they are created that way from within the Blessed Trinity all beyond separation; and have you bless them and praise the Trinity.
But everyone, except for Jesus and the BVM, comes into the world with defect of original sin, in whatever manner it will be discovered. This means that not everything we have by inheritance is ordained from God and not everything likewise is part of Redemption.
I may have a different created complex in original sin nothing to with homosexualism; where nonetheless it has no merit and has to be rejected, NOT part of any journey. I find your idea of “things necessarily conjoined” that “must be in unity”, applied here, is utterly distracted and running to compulsions. Sounds sweet but … What?
We are not created perfect. It is the grace of God that is perfect and leads us in its way steadying and building up reason, nature, what is right and good, faithfulness and attraction to truth. Also teaching us the necessary excisions. We are not brought to it as couples.
Such, are some of the true issues to do with homosexualism that are being left abandoned and left to random forces while the wrong things are given prominence only then infuse deeper confusion and stir up distrust. Having Welby talk about love and Gaza where his other positions are inimical is not our witness.
I want to call attention to the fact that Bergoglio has already succeeded in the first stage of his effort to normalize homoerotic behavior in the Church.
Note that even this Spanish Bishop Gil, who is less than enthused about Sfiducia Supplicans, refers to homosexual individuals as “couples” and as being in “irregular unions.”
I feel compelled to object. Gays with other gays are not “couples.” What they do is neither “union” nor “sex.”
It is nothing more than mutual masturbation, no more resembling the conjugal act than gin rummy or washing your car.
So “gay marriage” is in no way an alternative to marriage, “irregular” or otherwise.
Now, I’m old. And I enjoy being old, because I remember lots of things.
One thing I remember is that, for most of my adult life, from the late sixties through the push for gay “marriage” in the early aughts, the left was dead-set against marriage as an institution.
They would try to undermine marriage whenever and however they could.
“No piece of paper can tell me who to love,” was their mantra.
One of the left’s most reliable and most popular music groups from the sixties and seventies, Crosby, Stills & Nash, even did a song, “Love the One You’re With,” extolling the manifold joys of barnyard promiscuity.
So you can imagine my surprise when the lefties turned on a dime one day about twenty years ago and began wailing about the sad plight of gays who would never find happiness or fulfillment unless they were accorded full acceptance of their “marriages” by our cruel and bigoted society at large.
Why would gays care about having a piece of paper that dictated whom they were allowed to love, I wondered.
Simple. The reality is, the left cares nothing about marriage or its purpose — establishing families and providing a safe, stable, secure home for every child.
The left’s purpose in all this — as is always the case, with every issue they promote — is to undermine families, to promote abortions, to prevent births and to minimize life.
“Polyamory” — the barnyard promiscuity mentioned above — will quite obviously be the next moral outrage embraced by the evil one’s leftist minions.
If Bergoglio lives to see it, I anticipate the apostolic exhortation will be titled, “Fiducia Plures.”
In English, “Imploring Multitudes.”
And humanity’s suffering will once again be exacerbated by the death-dealing left.
Forgive me Lord, Archbishop Gil is not being very courageous nor very correct. “Gil stated that his intention is to ‘bless the person’ without having to do ‘a ceremony,’ according to Europe Press”.
Archbishop Gil is doing exactly what Cardinal Fernández and Pope Francis’ recommend in FS. “I am not going to bless even one homosexual union” [Gil] is an unfortunate fallacy. Example. If we bless ‘the person’ knowing that he she is homosexual we cannot separate person or persons and homosexual behavior. As said it’s a double bind in which the act contains two propositions, blessing of a person or persons and blessing a homosexual person or persons. It’s the act of blessing sinful behavior that’s egregious, not the intent.
In a human act there are two objects of the will, the internal and the external. The internal object willed is the intent, the external is the act. The external act, the materia sine quam, is what the act does. Without which it cannot be an act. It is the object [or moral object alluded to by John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor] of the act. As such morality is determined by what we do, not simply by what we intend. With that said in order for such a blessing to possess moral validity there must be the precondition of some form of repentance.
Correction: It’s materia circa quam not materia [sine] quam
It is necessary to separate here a case of those homosexuals who come not as a couple i.e. single individuals who can be present in any congregation and those two homosexuals who make a homosexual couple. In the first case, they can and do receive a blessing just as anyone else. In the second they cannot receive a blessing unless they meet certain conditions determined by the Church’s teaching.
A few days ago I published an essay on this topic which discussed the initial maddening argument “we are blessing a homosexual couple as persons and not as a couple” – but apparently this argument meanwhile became a bit more down to earth and slightly less maddening, like an argument of Archbishop Gil. Still, my discourse covers his “way out” as well so I will quote it:
“I am not going to address here the most common argument of the proponents of the blessings of homosexual couples in the Roman Catholic Church who manage to split their conscience to the point of truly believing that blessing a couple does not mean an approval of the very actions which make them a couple because “we are blessing them as persons”. It has been addressed already, by the fact that the Church has been imparting blessings on the all kinds of persons (including homosexual) for all its history hence there was no need of a document that states so – unless one had in a mind something else than blessing a person, in this case the blessing of a couple as a couple. “No, they are blessed as persons”. Here we go again.”
I.e., Archbishop Gil could bless piles of homosexuals before just like anyone else, no problem. ‘FS’ was not about that. ‘FS’ wants him to bless a couple, in however oblique way – to separate them into two corners, reading a prayer over one and then another and so on will not cancel the fact that they came to him as a couple.
Anna. Thanks for your response. I was aware Archbishop Gil was essentially referring to single persons. Couples are taken for granted when it’s apparent that they present themselves as homosexuals. A single person nevertheless is not exempt. If he or she presents as a homosexual with apparent intent to be blessed as a homosexual, thereby seeking approbation, I will not offer a blessing nor should any priest.
Whereas those who approach a priest presenting as homosexuals instead offer the priest an opportunity to speak to them about the faith and the consideration of repentance/conversion of manners. May I ask if your published essay is available online?
I think when a priest blesses a single person (one) he usually cannot see who the person is – a heterosexual or homosexual (unless the latter is beaming with “pride” symbols all over him and then it is another matter of course).
Yes, my essay is available online:
orthodox-christian-icons.com/abomination-of-desolation.html
Anna I read your excellent essay. Your icons are beautiful.
Dear Anna, thank you for the deeply illuminating essay on ‘The Abomination of Desolation’ that is the denial of serious sin by our ecclesial leaders.
Thank you, too, for the lovely ikons on your website.
orthodox-christian-icons.com/abomination-of-desolation.html
Anna, a comment here on the transformative implication posed by the parsed theology of FS. This is a singular moment in Church history that the blessing of a person or persons living in sin, by implication any sin and all sin, may be presumed blessed rather than the sin. Whereas the two cannot be separated. It’s the perfect guise to diminish faithful practice.
“It’s the perfect guise to diminish faithful practice.”
Or even camouflaging their construction of a new anti-Apostolic religion . . ?
Cathocommunism anyone . . ?
This manner of proceeding will be carried out “with painstaking respect for the unalterable doctrine of the Church on true marriage and irregular unions, avoiding all confusion and seeking the good of the faithful,” the statement concludes.
Amen. For all of Bergoglio’s hatred for conservative, i.e., orthodox, American bishops, it’s noteworthy that the loudest opposition to his heresy is coming from other shores.
There’s no such reality as a “homosexual union.” The archbishop might consider taking a course in human anatomy and, when finished with that, take a course in the Theology of the Body.
Es claro que esto no lo va leer ni mi abuela (falleció hace mucho), pero,,,,,,,,,1) Si un señor o señora homosexual pide en persona una bendición el sacerdote no puede negarla bajo ningún punto de vista salvo que pida se bendiga “su modo de vida”, no su “persona”. 2) Si una pareja de homosexuales se presenta como tal y como tal pide bendición, no se puede bendecir lo que Dios reprobó.3) El caso de una pareja heterosexual que pide bendición, salvo que hagan alarde de irregularidad el sacerdote no puede negar bendición, porque de internis nemo judicat,y lo que hacen no es “intrínsicamente” malo (como la homosexualidad) y no puede juzgarse si viven como dice S.Pablo II, o si tienen conciencia de la nulidad de su matrimonio anterior, o smplemente si no conviven. Simplemente piden ser bendecidos para hacer de sus vidas lo que Dios quiere, ¿Y quién es el sacerdote para juzgarlos, salvo que ellos lo pidieren?