“Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’” — Luke 15:4-6
“For just as by participating in Christ, we are given the title “Christian,“ so also are we drawn into a share in the lofty ideas which it implies“ – Saint Gregory of Nyssa
We in the Catholic Church as a whole and in particular in the Courage apostolate—the apostolate in the Church for people who experience same-sex attraction—have been given a great gift: the gift of truth. We freely graze in her green pastures, often not noticing our fellow sheep who have wandered away and are consuming poison. Truth is a gift, but many have not yet received it because of hardened hearts and darkened intellects, not because they don’t want it.
Recently, after the release of the Fiducia Supplicans, a friend reached out to me and asked if this document made my life more difficult as a man who experiences same-sex attraction and who chooses not to act on it or live it as an identity. “No,” I told her, “it doesn’t, because I know the truth”—as do the rest of us who are served by the Courage and Encourage apostolates. The only danger the Declaration on the pastoral meaning of blessing poses to me is the distraction it can become if I allow it to.
One early morning in 2018, as I got ready to drive to Mass, I received a text message from a friend. When I saw the text message alert, I rolled my eyes; I knew what the message was likely about. This friend, in my estimation, was somewhat obsessed with the scandal revolving around then-Cardinal McCarrick and the accusations of long-term sexual abuse of both minors and adults. I opened the text and verified my suspicion. At this early hour of the morning, I thought to myself, this devout Catholic friend is not meditating on the readings for Mass or spending time in prayer, drawing closer to Jesus. Nor, perhaps, are they expending necessary effort to deal with their own habitual, sexual, and substance-related sins. I wanted to send a message saying, “Stop worrying about McCarrick and focus on what is good for your soul.” I have a similar response when I hear some of the ongoing complaints about Pope Francis.
Pope Francis’s pectoral cross indicates, to me, how he sees his pontificate. On it is an image of Christ with the lost sheep being carried on His shoulders; in the background are the other ninety-nine sheep. In my mind, I see us in the Church who know the teachings of the Church and are doing our small part to grow closer to Jesus as the ninety-nine in the background. I see us with Francis grazing in the green fields of the goodness and love of Christ that we have been led to by the teachings and witness of the Church.
As Francis watches over us, he also looks off into the distance. He begins to walk away from the flock with his hand over his brows so he can see further. Some of the other sheep and I ask him, “What are you looking for?” He answers, “I am looking for all those sheep who are grazing in the wrong pastures and are unaware of Christ’s goodness and love for them.” He begins to walk further away from us, and I begin to get my wool in a bunch and ask him, “Where are you going?”
“I have to go and try to get those lost sheep out of those poisonous pastures,” he answers, “and back to the goodness of the Church.”
I say to him, “But what about us?” He responds, “Do you know where to graze? Do you know the goodness and truth of Jesus?”
“Yes,” I reply.
“Then continue to do so and pray for me,” he says, “as I go about the difficult, complex work of bringing your lost brothers and sisters back.”
As he walks away, I think, “What do I do here? Do I go to the other sheep and complain about the way he is going about bringing our lost sheep brethren back and stir the herd up to the point where they start to wander out of the good pasture of the Catholic Faith? Or do I remind them that we have been given this true and good pasture to graze in, and encourage them to pray for his efforts, imperfect and confusing as they may sometimes seem to us sheep?” The answer seems obvious.
Divinization is our goal as Catholics. We are not just trying to squeak our way into purgatory; we are invited to partake in the divine nature in this life. Doing so requires a lot of work on Jesus’s part and some on our part, and doing our small part involves focus and commitment. When we focus on caring for our fellow sheep in the good pasture of the Holy Catholic faith, evangelizing those who we have in our circle of influence, and supporting those shepherds in their efforts to bring back the lost sheep, our divinization and that of those around us develops and deepens. When we only complain and focus on the imperfections of others, we stunt our spiritual growth and that of those around us.
We in Courage and Encourage have the truth; so though it may disturb us we should not be deterred by a document that, while clumsy and confusing in parts of its presentation, has no impact on us outside of poking at a desired behavior that we already know is not good for us in any way. I think for many this is part of the real irritation with Fiducia Supplicans. Not what it does or does not do for people in irregular unions but that it seems to reopen the door, by many who lead the Church, to a same-sex relationship and the activity associated with it—a door that many who know the truth of the teachings of the Church have rightly shut. It is a temptation to what we know is not good for us.
Many of us, including me, don’t want to struggle. We don’t want to do the difficult work of self-denial, so we look for excuses to walk away from the good pasture and back to the poisonous one. This document and other statements from Church leaders seems to reopen doors that we who follow the teachings of the Church don’t want open, not only for the good of the other sheep but because we want our lives of virtue to be as easy as possible.
I think it is essential for me to be honest about my agitation with our shepherd, Pope Francis. He doesn’t make the truth unclear; he makes it more difficult for me and others to do what’s right and good without a struggle. To counter this, I keep my focus on “Christ Himself, the Good Shepherd and the Prince of the shepherds…” (Lumen gentium, 6).
If Pope Francis, in seeking new ways to bring back the lost sheep without changing the teachings of the Church, makes my life more difficult, are the souls of others worth it to me? Am I willing to say, “Okay, I know the truth, but what some leaders in the Church are doing to bring those blind back to the truth back makes my life of truth-seeking more difficult. Will I accept that for the sake of the lost sheep? Are the souls of the lost worth the increased difficulty and challenge for me?”
If the answer is yes, then divinization continues. If the answer is no, then I know that some self-examination is needed on my part.
Our lives are about loving God, pursuing holiness, and encouraging others to do the same. We in Courage are specially equipped through our five goals and the leadership of our chaplains to do this in the current environment. We are in the green, lush pasture of truth that we know those outside of it want and our Holy Father wants to lead others to.
So, how do we handle this? We make an effort to see the good and receive it from Fiducia Supplicans and if we cannot, we respectfully ignore it and anything else that distracts us from loving Jesus more and more. At the same time, we arm ourselves with the truth and trust that when and if we are confronted with this document as a weapon by a lost sheep, the Holy Spirit will give us the loving words to correct and guide and be a good example through our pursuit of a divinized life.
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 of Pope Francis: “…’pray for me,’ he says, ‘as I go about the difficult, complex work of bringing your lost brothers and sisters back’.”
And a situation made more difficult not merely in its “presentation,” but because the blessing is given to “couples” as such. And, because the dissenting Africans are dismissed as culturally retarded, and the rest as “ideological small groups” also to be ignored or even abandoned (“one must let them carry on and pass away.”)
Writer Johnson explains whether FS makes things more difficult for him: “[FS] doesn’t, because I know the truth.”
And, part of the truth is that all of the unmarried have the same call to celibacy; FS is an insidious deception to bless all “irregular” pairs as such, rather than each of the persons as such. In “drawing closer to Jesus,” we recall that of the two thieves whom Christ accompanied on Calvary, He blessed only the simple and transparent one, and not the complex and opaque “couple.”
Will Courage and Encourage be invited and be heard at the “listening” Synod 2024? Perhaps there will be enough pasture if Bishop Batzing and Fr. James Martin and a few other ideological sycophants stand down.
Been ruminating more over metaphors…While Pope Francis is carrying the lost sheep, is he himself being carried by a one-trick pony?
What happens when he returns to the other 99 and finds that they’ve been scattered by the winds that blow from the unguarded keep? Has the guardian of the Deposit of Faith forgotten about his first and primary obligation toward even the synodal “communion, participation, and mission”? By nearly all measures, the Church has fallen further into disarray these past ten years…
And, who is at fault? It must be those culturally impaired bishops of continental Africa, and the other “ideological small groups” of Poland, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Peru, parts of France and Spain, and the sidelined, former Prefect for the (now demoted) CDF/DDF, and a whole bunch of other “backwardists”…intimidated today into silence, or else all those pre-forwardist witnesses to Christ buried over the past two millennia.
But, still YES, with Francis and about divine mercy and love… However, the shelved St. John Paul II would have us be even more authentically single-hearted, and not so narrowly single-minded:
“…the commandment of love of God and neighbor does not have in its dynamic any HIGHER limit [Francis], but it does have a LOWER limit, beneath which the commandment is broken [Jesus Christ]” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 52). It’s about both the Beatitudes and the Commandments…
The forwardism of constant change is the deepest ideological rut of all.
Very good comment. I am trying to promote Courage and EnCourage in New Zealand, BUT only have a very small handful of people interested, and no chaplains yet. Definitely no Bishops yet.
In any case, all what occurs in this world of sinners (original sin) are permitted to teach each of His children (destined to die), the final lesson that this world cannot be made paradise, and the Paradise can not be populated by sinners (having already experienced them).
Steps that could be considered to lessen the confusion and concerns over FS:
1) To those requesting a blessing (presumably with good will and at least a glimmer of the right disposition), only a private (without cameras) blessing may be given, individually and separately, (and NOT a common one to the “couple”, so as to avoid the impression that the pseudo-“union” is being blessed.)
2) In the light of https://youtu.be/rIn1llyHEeo , if https://padrepiopress.com/2024/01/11/a-blessing-that-does-not-imply-validation-or-approval-of-same-sex-couples/ is deemed to ALWAYS be “merciless” / too “harsh” for those ‘living in caves’, perhaps, in the spirit of https://wdtprs.com/2006/01/st-francis-de-sales-honey-and-vinegar/ ,
instead of one common blessing applicable to both at one go, bless one individually and separately, followed by the other individually and separately, and in both cases, without being too rigid, words such as or similar to the following may be considered:
‘May our loving God who rushes to embrace the prodigal son upon his return, enable you through His Grace to be open to His invitation to grow in fidelity to His Gospel and “resolutely approach Christian perfection”.’ (CCC 2359)
or
‘May the Good Shepherd who seeks out the lost sheep, and rejoices to find it, help you to respond generously to His Love.’
or
‘May St. Peter Damian (https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/cardinal-reinhard-marx-vs-cardinal-and-saint-peter-damian-do-homosexual-un/ ) accompany you to our Father’s House!’
or
‘May St. Charles Lwanga (https://whyiamprolife.blogspot.com/2013/06/tenth-anniversary-of-landmark-catholic.html ) intercede for your health and welfare before the Lord our God!’
etc.
When giving separate, individual blessings, it would be better to use different wording to stress that the blessing is not for the same sex “couple” or their pseudo- “union”.
For example, for one individual, the blessing can invoke St Peter Damian, while for the other individual, the blessing can invoke his guardian angel or St. Charles Lwanga or any of the patron saints for chastity or any of the patron saints who can help in the area of sexual temptation – https://www.catholic.org/saints/patron.php
Different short blessings which (in)directly exhort (for example) purity (for eg. think St. Maria Goretti) or invoke the intercession of (say) St. Dismas for help in amending / ordering one’s life according to the Will of God sooner rather than wasting life / time and waiting for the last moment, etc. can also be considered.
Improvisation can also be considered whereby a different type of blessing is given for people in overtly irregular/impossible-to-be-“regularized” situations – eg., whereas a ‘regular’/normal couple can be blessed commonly from a distance like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5UnO1TxfQg ,
in the case of those in irregular/impossible-to-be-“regularized” situations, a priest may, for eg., consider the following:
Draw close to an individual, (in such a way so as to indicate that a personal, individual, separate blessing is being given AND NOT a common one), and, holding both palms of the individual in a clasp of the priest’s hands, recite an individual-specific prayer, followed by tracing a cross on his forehead.
Then, turn to the other individual, face only him, then recite a different, individual-specific prayer, followed by tracing a cross on his heart.
Those are examples (with improvisation possible), whereby through words and gestures, it is possible to indicate that there is no common blessing.
FS suggests that during a ‘spontaneous blessing, the ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance.’
But while peace and health can be implored individually, because words relating to patience, dialogue and mutual assistance, can imply / indicate an indirect recognition, if not affirmation/legitimization of the pseudo-“union”, it may be prudent to avoid those words.
While a common blessing for regular couples can include gestures like
https://avatars.mds.yandex.net/i?id=bb38120f5c940024d80e512877e88180436b5de3-10782253-images-thumbs&n=13
and
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/1200×675/p0322pcm.jpg
and
https://billditewig.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/pope-francis-one-man-one-woman-marriage-original-pic.jpg ,
in the case of those in irregular/impossible-to-be-“regularized” situations,
to avoid the confusion/scandal that can arise through scenes like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofa0rb6Yc74
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrTgG29oH60
and
https://twitter.com/carleolson/status/1737267792666411014/photo/1
avoid common gestures and blessings, and consider each individual separately and face only him/her directly like https://www.heraldmalaysia.com/uploads/news/2018/6/12550522361529646437.jpg
2) FS ought also to be amended as follows: (and the spirit of what is suggested below ought to be applied throughout that document and any new ones)…
Instead of
,
include quotes as follows:
to indicate that while the former MIGHT be regularized, it is impossible for the latter to be regularized or recognized as legitimate.
The same applies to ‘union’, i.e., instead of , say
Indeed, FS has opened a Pandora’s box for it begs the question, – what’s so special about “couples” of the same sex? Why not groups involving more than two people of the same or opposite or both same and opposite sex? – see the reference toward the end to polyamory in https://youtu.be/H_M7iX_H1wg
(Anticipating that, and to avoid more confusion and scandal, as noted above, it is better to give only private {without cameras}, individual and separate blessings, provided there is good will and at least a glimmer of the right disposition in those asking for the blessing.)
I agree that the blessing if given to people in these “irregular unions,” should be done in a way that makes it clear that they are being blessed as individuals, not couples. I thought maybe the priest giving the blessing could stand between them so it is clear they are not a couple. You give a lot of good suggestions as well.
Re the priest standing between them, that, and any other appropriate gestures/words too are fine, as long as it is evident that the “union” / “couple” is not being blessed.
When speaking about the POSSIBILITY of receiving (not right to receive) a blessing, FS # 31 refers to ‘…those who, recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of (God’s) help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status…’
So, even before getting to the stage of standing between the “couple”, when they ask for a blessing, right at the get-go, the priest could, as a litmus test, gently indicate that a blessing that MAY be imparted would only be: (1) in private (without cameras) (2) individually (i.e. not jointly), (3) separately.
If, instead of the appropriate disposition, murmuring / disapproval is then detected/expressed, the priest can decline right away, saying that since he is not convinced that they are claiming a legitimation of their own status, he cannot proceed.
In this website, in another article entitled ‘Fiducia Supplicans and the Christian Conscience’, we read: ‘…when a couple in an irregular situation asks for a blessing, it is because they want the Church’s blessing on their union. In other words, because they want to hear that God “well-calls” or approves their union, since that is precisely what blessing (bene-dicere) means. Such a couple would certainly not be pleased if they heard the priest praying for chastity and abstinence only to subsequently bless them individually…’
To that, the observation is: well, the Church is not here to please / mollycoddle. And if the “couple” are ‘not pleased’, and begin to murmur / object, then again that would be an indication that they do not quite fit the category of ‘…those who, recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of (God’s) help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status…’
Anyone can ask for a blessing, but whether one should be given and what is the appropriate way to give a blessing is not up to the person asking for the blessing to control / dictate, but for the priest to discern and decide, without going out of sync with Scripture and Tradition.
Re “irregular unions”, since words matter, as noted in the below post script, in striving toward clarity, we ought to distinguish between those which can never be regularized – (like a same sex “couple”) – and those which MIGHT be regularized in SOME cases (for eg., divorced and remarried ‘couple’ who, without living as brother and sister, are living in adultery as long as the lawful spouse is alive – but the situation can change in the future if the lawful spouse dies.)
Conflating the condition of an opposite sex ‘couple’ and a same sex “couple” under the umbrella term “irregular union” can be misleading.
In other words, that term can be used for an opposite sex ‘couple’ but not for a same sex “couple”. For the latter, speaking about a “union” is stretching the term to include a caricature of a union. (Sort of like stretching the term ‘woman’ to include “trans-woman”.)
Whereas in an ‘irregular’ situation involving an opposite sex ‘couple’, we can still speak about a ‘union’, in the case of a same-sex “couple”, since that is not even possible, there is simply a simulation/caricature of a “union” – or to put it bluntly: a pseudo/non-“union”.
A correction in the previous post is noted in CAPS:
If, instead of the appropriate disposition, murmuring / disapproval is then detected/expressed, the priest can decline right away, saying that since he is not convinced that they are NOT claiming a legitimation of their own status, he cannot proceed.
PS: Looks like a portion of my previous post may not have been posted in full, hence, here’s the missing portion…
2) FS ought also to be amended as follows: (and the spirit of what is suggested below ought to be applied throughout that document and any new ones)…
Instead of
Blessings of Couples in Irregular Situations and of Couples of the Same Sex,
include 2 different type of quotes as follows:
Blessings of ‘Couples’ in ‘Irregular’ Situations and of “Couples” of the Same Sex
to indicate that while in SOME cases, it MIGHT be possible to regularize the former, it is always impossible for the latter to be regularized or recognized as legitimate. (This would again affirm the 2021 CDF Responsum to the effect that God cannot bless sin.)
The same applies to any pseudo-‘union’, i.e., instead of same sex union, say same sex “union”.
The same also applies to all uses of the alphabet soup which are used to label and saddle people with harmful/pseudo-“identities”, i.e., instead of LGBT, say “LGBT”, instead of gay / lesbian / transgender, etc., say: “gay” / “lesbian” / “transgender”, etc.
Of course, the above pseudo-acronyms peddled by ideological lobbies should not be foolishly adopted / used in Church documents but may be considered for use only outside of Church documents.
As for Church documents themselves, let’s never forget the wise and prudent counsel in https://www.ncregister.com/blog/archbishop-chaput-lgbt-should-not-be-used-in-church-docs
Thank you Holy brother.
You’re welcome. Thank you for taking the time to read and comment.
Thanks for your encouragement to keep on keroing on the straight path of divinization, despite Pope Francis & German Synod.👍🙏🙏👍🙏
What well intentioned people do not understand, due to social media and in the name of progress, is just how dangerous any deviation other than the one God intended, meaning the faithful, loving union of a man and a woman through marriage and raising a family truly are. It was easier to choose the same path of debauchery, lies, drugs and so forth as Mr. Johnson because I was told it was normal. Realizing in my 50s that no one that followed in my footsteps was happy, this also applies to unmarried women who chose careers and solitude over raising a family and finding an equally loving man. The goodness we can do by being able to see that and encourage others following that toxic way of living to turn back to God is our greatest contribution to our bothers and sisters, country and society. I would like to remind everyone who disagrees, that being abortionists, endorsing non-heteronormative agendas or other destructive, demonic lifestyles because of good intentions on your part, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am a gay man in my 50s, realizing only too recently that the happiest I have been is when I was devoted to Christ in its entirety. I look forward to reading Mr. Johnson’s book.
What a wonderful comment, thank you for it. Your past (and all our pasts) just like the Prodigal Son, has won for you a crown of humility and desire to be received into the Father’s Heart of Love, which has always beaten for you and me and each soul who ever lives. Praise and thank God for the Light of Truth which has come to you and which you have received and responded to. You will do great work for the Lord in His vineyard – let’s remember that all who agree come to the vineyard receive the same wonderful wage, God Himself, no matter how late the hour. Those who come early have the great privilege and joy of being with God and working with Him all day, gathering souls; those who arrive later and at the eleventh hour, will know and feel great joy after being without work and God for so long and we rejoice with them, as Our Heavenly Father desires.
Amen. Thank you for sharing your experience with this lifestyle. The more we who have been freed from this false identity speak out, the more likely we are to help spare others from the same misery.
Johnson responds intelligently from the best of spiritual perspectives how to adjust to FS. He’s sufficiently Catholic Christian to perceive the flaws, potential danger, wise enough to identify the good. He’s a blessing for those struggling with same sex attraction.
From another perspective, which includes a wider spectrum, FS poses a grave and imminent danger to the many not spiritually and experientially equipped as Garrett Johnson to avoid falling into the trap of accommodation, and for some practice. The mind, however it accepts on face value what FS says, will conscientiously prevaricate, and finally realize we cannot logically separate the person or persons from their actions. As the adage goes 50 million Frenchmen can’t be wrong.
Dear Father. You say those that are “struggling with same sex attraction”. I may be off track here, but I know Gays that seem not to be “struggling”.
The sacred message that Christ’s church espouses should be followed by all who believe and encouraged to those who do not. “The single foot prints in the sand are when I carried you in my arms”.
God bless.
MorganD there are those who choose to struggle as there are those who choose not to. Those who choose to struggle have faith in Christ, those who prefer to enjoy same sex do not. Belief is not faith. It’s true, Christ’s message should be encouraged to those who choose not to struggle. Encouraged yes, a lack of compliance not. We are required to covert our lives to Christ. The lost sheep Christ carried was found, meaning like the Prodigal he repented.
Morgan, not everyone with an affliction struggles against it but it harms them all the same. More so actually.
As his directive to “bless” same-sex unions received the raucous applause of abortionist politicians, luciferian Hollywood celebrities and the global ruling elite, Pope Francis is universally – and undeniably – understood to be “officially unofficially” blessing “gay marriage”.
Blessings “are for everyone”. But souls who choose to persist in a life of sin cannot be sanctified as they place themselves beyond the grace of God.
The blasphemous “blessing” of same-sex unions is not an invitation to faith. Instead, Fiducia Supllicans misleads souls as it is a tacit “validation” of sinful relationships.
And those who struggle with sin are tempted not only by the fallen world – they are now enticed to sin by a pope who is understood to be “blessing” relationships that are the near occasion of grave sin.
In a confused and divided world, Pope Francis merely adds to the confusion and division with his specious directive “Fiducia Supplicans”.
Father John Matthew Duffy
Toronto, Canada
Some of our Protestant brethren are practicing accommodation and look what is happening to them. The Methodists, their largest group in the US, is falling apart. Many Baptists are in disarray, the Episcopals shattered and the Lutherans reeling. What happens when the blind lead the blind? It’s madness to even think about following.
Excellent article Garrett. The lost sheep episode is perfect. I also thought of “Caritas in Veritate” by Pope Benedict, when I was reading your article. His opening line is this: “Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore witness by his earthly life and especially by his death and resurrection, is the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity.” Like you, I think Pope Francis does have good intentions. It’s unfortunate that more time for the episcopal conferences around the world to discuss and vet Fiducia Supplicans wasn’t made available. I think this whole mess could have been avoided.
Thanks Garrett. You are a wise and well-intentioned man, and you once showed me amazing insight that persuaded me of your holiness l
Thank you for your honesty and for your mission.
Not remarking about something you disagree with can be mistaken for agreement or assent. That is really the issue here. Remaining silent is a slippery slope.If this is ok, what comes next? This is after all, the church, from which we get moral guidance. Its not a grocery store where you pick out what you want and leave the rest. At least, it should not be. Its a package deal.
Bravo for your stand not to act out on same sex attraction. This is not easy. And you are not alone in what I assume must therefore be a celibate life. The church has always preached that ANY sex outside of marriage was forbidden. This fact has gotten much less press in our increasingly secular society.Straight sex outside of marriage is so common it is no longer spoken about. I have often thought our priests are afraid to approach this topic,for fear of push-back, as I NEVER hear a homily about it. Maybe if there was more stress given to the general prohibition, there would be less assumption here that this paper is an OK for gay relationships.
But my overall thought is that the Pope had not needed to produce this paper to begin with. If he was looking for lost sheep, lending even the appearance of approval to their “irregular” sexual lifestyle was not a good way to find them. Sins are sins, period. He would have been better trying to explain the churches prohibition on non-marital sex. Gays are not alone in finding this situation trying. Many of us who are widows or widowers face this same issue.As do young people, whose ability to marry could be many years away.The Pope might have been better to re-state the grounds on which the church bases it’s opposition to non-marital sex of all sorts. He chose instead to make himself a slave of what I call the tyranny of “nice”. In an effort to be nice to a small contingent of people, he has turned the church upside down. I am sorry but this is not something that can be ignored. And whether or not his critics are themselves perfect has nothing to do with the point. His critics are not the head of the church, with the power to influence for good or ill, billions of people. He is. As such, he needs to be much more careful when he speaks.
It’s easy to say. If temptations could be overcome, then what would have been the intention of creating an anxiety and fear-prone defective human creature? Animals do not fight temptations. Were they loved best and more by their creator? Was anthropomorphism to attribute capricious, competitive, and impulsive behaviors to the Creator? Does image and likeness include those behaviors of which the OT is full of examples?
Every person is created either male or female, and no person is created with desires or affections against God’s creation of human sexuality. All desires or affections against God’s creation of human sexuality are counterfeits and lies concerning His creation of human sexuality, and those so afflicted can be wholly freed from them, if desired by those suffering such, by the usage of the gifts of the Holy Spirit to whom those gifts have been given. It appears that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church are very remiss in exercising these gifts, for Jesus even told His Apostles, and thus His Apostolic Successors, to heal the sick and to raise the dead, and such as that is not commonly done. Our Father desires that we all be free in and through His Son Jesus Christ, in living His creation of us.
On divinization …. “His divine power has bestowed on us everything that makes for life and devotion, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and power.
Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature, after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire.”
SEE AT: BIBLE.USCCB.ORG 2 PETER 1: 3-4.
God bless, C-Marie
I wish this publication would also refer to whatever is said yet written in all directions. I refer to respectful disagreement and avoidance of biases. The following brief article appeared today (February 2, 2024) in L’Osservatore Romano: «That arrogance which we don’t notice, by Sergio Valzania. ” By Sergio Valzania. L’Osservatore Romano, February 2, 2024; pp. 1 and 3.
In his recent A Word Before the Apocalypse, Adrien Candiard writes, “The evils of the world no longer provoke submission, but revolt. Far from asking God to forgive them for their sins, men are now asking God for an account.” The meaning of his words is very clear: mankind has abandoned the attitude of fear before God. On the other hand, using science and its discoveries, it has developed a vision of the divine that excludes direct interventions through nature, such as earthquakes and famines, to punish humanity for its misdeeds or to reward the devotees with the concession of good harvests and long life. In modern times, women and men have developed a new sensitivity to the sacred, even more mature, but perhaps too arrogant. They are before God and ask him to account and reason for everything in Creation that seems to them not to work, or to function in an uncertain way. It is a revival in modern terms of Job’s protest and of the question of theodicy, literally of divine justice, commonly reinterpreted as the problem of evil, of why God, in his omnipotence and infinite goodness, allows the suffering of the innocent. It is a way of remaining in the middle of the ford, of transforming oneself from well-behaved children for fear of punishment into badly psychoanalyzed children who shift all the blame for what happens to them onto their parents. We hope to be at the dawn of a new, more aware day. Capable of a complex and responsible elaboration of the relationship with God, which becomes equal in the recognition of his infinity accompanied by the showing of himself to women and men through the mysteries of the Incarnation, the Cross, and the Eucharist. A God above all of the wretchedness and not only of justice, to whom we do not ask an account of what we do not judge to be correct in the universe but to whom we turn with prayer so that he may open our eyes and help us to live in the best and most complete way the life he has given us. (Translation from Italian is mine).»
What’s your point here?
One does not bring the lost back into the fold by giving a description of the fold that no sheep actually in it would recognize.
There’s an proselytization technique in which one tells those outside a different version of doctrine, so that it will be more acceptable and they’ll be willing to “join”. But they haven’t actually assented to Church teaching in so doing, have not actually converted, and have not actually been healed. I have always thought it a decidedly dishonest technique. But that is how FS is being used.
Thank you for your perspective. I have been so upset over FS, not knowing what to believe. After reading your article peace is returning to my soul.
This is a misleading article. It calls those who are shocked and confused (not merely “complain” as the author put it, distorting the truth) to be silent, to turn away and not to oppose the subtle but ruinous heresy. The author goes on trying to convince the reader about “lost sheep” and so on, up to the point that “something good may be derived from FS”. The truth is that nothing good can be derived from a poisonous fruit (here a deception and lies); worst of all, those who try to eat it lose the ability to see the evil clearly, as the author himself demonstrates. I understand that it is hard, for a Roman Catholic, to come to terms with the truth that the Pope cracked the heresy but if such a Catholic wants to engage in his “divinization” he should be clear about the objective truth first – otherwise he will not know where is the divine and where is the evil. The way towards God is not to try to find something good in the evil but to call it evil, say “no” and stand by the truth fighting the evil up to death – all that while hanging on Christ. The author, in a very watered-down way, in effect repeats ‘FS’ by saying “I know the truth, “no” to homosexual sex” yet attempts to find something good in the document which blesses the opposite of that truth, in a covert way. He does not notice that he himself begins transmitting a deception thus continuing the deception of ‘FS’.
He writes: “If Pope Francis, in seeking new ways to bring back the lost sheep without changing the teachings of the Church, makes my life more difficult, are the souls of others worth it to me?”
The truth is that Pope Francis changed the teaching of the Church, in an action of blessing a homosexual couple – while saying he did not. So, the truthful way to write, for an author, would be “If Pope Francis, in seeking new ways to bring back the lost sheep VIA CHANGING the teachings of the Church, makes my life more difficult, are the souls of others worth it to me?”
I wrote before on this website about “a double bind” used in ‘FS’ that is sending two conflicting messages simultaneously, in this case “I order to bless homosexual couples – I do not change the teaching of the Church”. Those mutually excluding statements shut rational thinking down.
I will crack this double bind now:
“I ordered to bless homosexual couples = I changed the teaching of the Church”
or
“I did not order to bless homosexual couples = I did not change the teaching of the Church”.
Hence, those who try to make themselves to believe that Pope Francis did not change the teaching of the Church must understand that in this case they also have to believe that Pope Francis does not order to bless homosexual couples and stick to this.
To be shut down by the double bind has its benefits. One who accepts the “nice” view of the author no longer needs to be anxious about “blessings” in his parish, does not need to inform his priest about his views or to write to the bishop. He no longer has to try to find answer for difficult questions. In a word, he does not need to be a witness. Alas, there are far too many people like that in the Church and this is why the Church is in such a state – not because of Rupniks, Fernandezes etc but because “the nice people” who are trying to see something nice in the evil provide Rupniks and Fernandezes with the space to act. In clinical psychology it is called “an enabler”, a “nice” member of a toxic family who “explains” an abuser to others to keep a peace in a family, instead of opposing him.
Garrett wrote a beautiful perspective, and he raises valid points. Still the concern is not about Pope Francis’s attention to the proverbial “one lost sheep.” I know no Catholic who does not welcome that. Also neither are those of us in some acquaintance with SSA, with loved ones, personally negatively influenced by Fiducia Supplicans.
It is how the Pope is conducting his search. Who has his attention for going about this endeavor? Over this Papacy, candidly, it has not been those who evangelize in both love but uncomfortable truth, and not just with the issue of same sex relations.
Support for Courage and Encourage would be a wonderful approach, a great start for the Pope’s search party, even if some are not yet ready for a full embrace. However, as other commentators have mentioned, this Apostolate, founded fifty years ago, is still ignored and, in some parishes outright evaded. Instead, in too many wayward fields, the weak sheep are being offered a deceiving sheepfold with such groups as Fortunate Families, Dignity, and New Way Ministry. The silence from Rome is deafening.
Still, we pray for Pope Francis and keep the Faith!
This was a balanced and well thought out article. Good food for thought.
The Courage apostolate should be supported by faithful Catholics. They no doubt have a perspective that few others have.
Thank you and may God bless you for this. What a mess indeed this pontificate has made.
The Africans get an exception because they are considered not progressive enough to bless couples in sin.
We are hitting bottom. Stay Catholic with Christ crucified.
Certainly, you have the courage of your convictions.
Everything has beauty. The feminine beauty has natural genius, while the masculine has pragmatic strength.
These two compliment each other.
Nature can produce differences in people where an absence of or too much the other way leads to an imbalance.
We have a book called the Word of God. The Divine Law. We are required to be extremely compassionate and understanding. Nevertheless, the Divine Law has certain concepts we respect.
No one who is a sincere seeker can be an outcast or ridiculed, but there are expectations according to this Divine Law.
Matthew 5:19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
That’s it. If you don’t like it, get another book.
The Divine Law stands and we love it because we believe that the Holy Spirit is within its pages and words.
Even if we are far from perfect, we would rather have the Divine Law, thank you nonetheless and nevertheless.
Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth just to a man …
The Word of God will stand forever. The thoughts of man are like vapor …
There is nothing good about Fiducia Supplicans.
It is doubtful that “same-sex attraction” exists. Do we call people who commit the sin called self-abuse as “auto-sex attracted”? We don’t and we ought not to because it is sin not some disease.
The fraud of the erroneous concept of mental illness has contributed to “turning” sin into illness. It was a well-conceived conspiracy which has brought this to pass. See https://www.cchr.org/cchr-reports/eroding-justice/introduction.html
Every person struggles with temptation. That is normal for humans.
Great observations, but the answer to the question, “What do I do here?” does not have to be “either/or.” We are not sheep—we are children of the Father, capable of complex responses that include “both/and.” So I will both encourage others to remain in the green pasture and pray for Francis, and I will complain about his comments that lead others astray and appear to justify their doing so.
‘ So, whether or not you believe that this song is about LSD is up to you. ‘
– American Songwriter
https://americansongwriter.com/meaning-behind-lucy-in-the-sky-with-diamonds-by-the-beatles/
Beatles “Remastered 2009”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naoknj1ebqI
Elton John in concert
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJtAAg_jAjk
Lyrics
https://genius.com/The-beatles-lucy-in-the-sky-with-diamonds-lyrics