The Declaration Fiducia Supplicans (FS), released Monday morning has, to put it mildly, roiled the waters and unleashed a torrent of reaction—not just within the Church, but in secular media and among many non-Catholic groups.
Here are three responses to the document: the first by a noted Evangelical Protestant theologian and Scripture scholar; the second by a Catholic layman who is an attorney and has an undergraduate degree in Catholic theology; and the third by a priest and regular Catholic World Report contributor. (The various views expressed are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of CWR staff or Ignatius Press.)
Pax Christi,
Carl E. Olson
Editor, Catholic World Report
Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon
Philip Primeau
Fr. Jerry J. Pokorsky
Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon is the author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice and professor of Bible at Houston Christian University. He holds a BA from Dartmouth, an MTS from Harvard Divinity School, and a PhD from the Princeton Theological Seminary.
The Vatican’s Dicastery (i.e., administration; formerly, Congregation) for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued, with Pope Francis’s approval, a document called Fiducia Supplicans (hereafter FS) that contains a section allowing priests to offer “non-ritualized blessings” to “couples of the same sex” (III.31-41). It is a master-class example of doublespeak.
On the one hand, the document denies that such a non-ritualized or informal blessing gives any legitimacy to homosexual unions. On the other hand, it provides the foundation for precisely such legitimation by treating the union as something that qualifies for a blessing.
Note well: I just used the word “union.” The prefect of the Dicastery that put out FS, Cardinal Victor Fernández, has since its publication attempted a distinction between a blessing of the “couple” and a non-blessing of the “union.” Yet, as his predecessor prefect, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, has rightly observed, “this is emptying a word of its meaning, since what defines a couple as couple is precisely their being a union.” I follow normal usage in treating “couple,” “union,” and “relationship” as more or less interchangeable.
The incest analogue
Substitute for “same-sex couple” an adult-committed “man-mother or sister-brother incestuous couple,” or worse still, a “pedophilic couple,” and you will get the point that “blessing” at any level is incompatible with a sexual behavior that is deemed morally abhorrent to God.
Can you imagine the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 5, who was outraged by the Corinthian toleration of an incestuous relationship, permitting the believers at Corinth to give a blessing for all that is good in that very same relationship between the Christian man and his stepmother? I can’t, because it is historically impossible. Nobody with even a bare minimum of theological and ethical acumen could possibly argue otherwise.
I understand that some will bristle at the comparisons with adult-consensual incest or pedophilia. Pedophilia is worse, and I cite it only as an example of the outermost extremes to which the logic of FS absurdly takes us, since even in pedophilic relationships (think classical Athens), some might argue, not everything that happens is without trace of any expression of care.
As for adult-committed incestuous relationships, the authors of Scripture (and implicitly Jesus himself) treat homosexual practice as worse. Both can be practiced as adult-committed relationships, and both are problematic because they attempt to unite persons who are too much alike structurally or formally (one on the level of sex or gender, the other on the level of kinship), exhibiting insufficient otherness.
Yet homosexual practice is not just an assault on a principle extrapolated secondarily from the foundation of sexual ethics. The male-female prerequisite is the foundation (as Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 make clear, both cited by Jesus in Mark 10:6-7 with parallel in Matt 19:4-5), as the basis for limiting the number of partners to two (no concurrent polygamy and serial remarriage after divorce). Likewise, we may infer that the principle for rejecting even adult-committed incestuous bonds (viz., excessive structural sameness) is first established at creation in God’s intentional creation of two complementary sexes.
Moreover, the uber-sameness is greater with homosexual couples than it is with incestuous couples, since sex or gender is a more essential component of sexuality than kinship. This explains why there are loopholes for incest prior to Levitical law but never any loopholes in ancient Israel for engaging in homosexual practice.
Again, if clerics should never bless an incestuous couple (and I assume that the authors of FS would not promote that, given the clarity of Paul’s response to the incestuous man at Corinth), they surely shouldn’t bless a homosexual couple, which Jesus and the authors of Scripture viewed as even worse than incest.
Don’t be cruel
We are not advocating here for cruelty toward those engaged in sexual sin. Jesus was known for reaching out in love both to sexual sinners and to exploitative tax collectors.
What is less well known, both then by the Pharisees and today by modern Pharisees on the left, is that Jesus conducted this outreach in the context of intensifying God’s ethical demand both for sexual purity and against exploiting the poor (tax collectors had a reputation for doing the latter). Indeed, Mark pinpoints as Jesus’ summary message, “The time has been fulfilled and the kingdom of God has come near; repent and believe in the gospel” (1:15).
Everyone can be reclaimed by repentance and faith, which precludes a willful persistence in a pattern of egregious sexual sin. Withholding the blessing of an immoral union or of the “couple” essential to such a union is not the same as withholding a blessing to a sinful individual who wishes to cease from sinning. The “sinful woman” who washed Jesus’ feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair as a response of gratitude to divine forgiveness is not going to exit the door to return to her sinful behavior with other persons.
What would be cruel is conveying the false impression that God is in some way blessing the immoral union. For that would leave the “couple” lost in their sins and dead to God, rather than (as in the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15) as found in repentance and alive to God. Such a false conveyance puts the immoral “couple” at high risk of being excluded eternally from the kingdom of God. That’s cruel.
Homosexual relationships are not marriage-lite
Contrary to what FS assumes, homosexual relationships are not just a diluted, less-thriving, second-order version of heterosexual marriage. Homosexual intercourse is viewed by Scripture as abhorrent to God (even more than adult-consensual incest), incurring for the impenitent the maximum penalty of exclusion from God’s eternal kingdom.
Homosexual relationships are held by Scripture to be an egregious dishonoring of the participants who treat themselves as half their own sex (two half-males make a whole male, two half-females make a whole female) in contradiction to the Creator’s creation of them as wholly male or wholly female.
Again, as Jesus taught us, the foundation of marriage is God’s intentional design of “male and female” as sexual counterparts. Each of the two sexes is one half of a sexual whole. Each completes sexually the other (anatomically, physiologically, psychologically). For Jesus, the sexual binary or twoness of the sexes established by God at creation was the basis for limiting the number of partners in a sexual union to two.
So, no, homosexual relationships are not just a deficient alternative to a male-female marriage. They are a categorical and absolute rejection of the very foundation of marriage. No blessing of any sort can be given to such a relationship without denying what Jesus viewed as foundational to all sexual ethics.
The flawed rationale behind blessing what is good about homosexual relationships
FS states that “there is no intention to legitimize anything, but rather to open one’s life to God, to ask for his help to live better, and also to invoke the Holy Spirit so that the values of the Gospel may be lived with greater faithfulness.” Again, this is doublespeak.
The only way to “live better” and to “live with greater faithfulness” is to dissolve the relationship completely. One can’t morally improve the homosexual relationship in any meaningful way that would honor God, any more than an incestuous relationship can be improved apart from dissolving it.
The document adds: “In a brief prayer preceding this spontaneous blessing, the ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance—but also God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely.” This is more doublespeak.
Praying for a homosexual couple to have more patience with one another and to help each other does not provide even a partial fulfillment of God’s will for the relationship. For God has no will for the relationship to exist at all. The fundamental problem with the relationship is not an incapacity to demonstrate mutual patience and assistance but rather the fact that it is a homosexual relationship.
“To fulfill his will completely” suggests that a homosexual relationship partially fulfills God’s will when it is conducted in a loving fashion. Such an assumption is as false here as it would be for an incestuous, polyamorous, adulterous, or pedophilic relationship.
Still more doubletalk
It is mere window dressing when FS asserts that “the form of which [blessing] should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage.” A sexual relationship that can be blessed informally will invariably over time be blessed in a formally ritualized way. We are just slowly boiling the frog here.
FS unseriously refers to a blessing “upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit” (my emphasis).
The very existence and continuance of the homosexual relationship represents a claim to legitimacy on the part of those in the relationship. To contend that those coming for a blessing “do not claim a legitimation of their own status” is false on its face. Else, they would not be in the relationship at all. And there is no “enriching” or “healing” of the relationship possible, which in God’s eyes needs to have stopped yesterday.
The document claims that the blessing can have as its purpose: “so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love.”
Again, the problem with homosexual relationships, what makes them abhorrent to God, is not that they need to further “mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel,” as if they already reflected some minimal amount of fidelity to the gospel but just needed more of the same. The relationship by its very existence manifests a profound unfaithfulness to the gospel from the get-go.
The only way to free homosexual relationships from their imperfections
The only way that such relationships can be “freed from their imperfections” is to end them immediately. It is not a question of an “ever-increasing dimension of the divine love” as though the participants in the homosexual relationship are already on the right trajectory. This is akin to claiming that continuing to travel further in the wrong direction, only with greater ease, is an improvement of the journey.
The authors of FS, seeking to appease those who rightly see this “blessing” for what it is (viz., a first-step at full approval), warn that “this blessing should never [sic] be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding.”
Prior to this document’s release, homosexual unions were “never” officially blessed at all in the Catholic Church (though some rogue clerics have violated the church’s official teaching). In fact, only two years ago in the 2021 Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Catholic Church declared, “It is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage… as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex.”
“Never” in FS means only “never” in the present moment, not for all time to come. The logic of the informal blessing demands a move ultimately to a formal blessing in a context that approximates or appropriates marriage. For FS recognizes many goods in the homosexual union, speaks of improving that relationship, and treats it as a second-order form of marriage.
Be outraged
Pope Francis is, I think, ordering a seismic shift in the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexual relationships with the ultimate goal of the full endorsement of such relationships. He is doing as much as he can do to hasten that development, short of provoking an all-out Catholic civil war.
The response of the Prefect Emeritus of the of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Müller, which I saw only after I had completed the penultimate version of this piece, has warmed the heart of this Protestant by his constant appeal to the biblical witness:
Innovations cannot go beyond what was revealed to them once and for all by the apostles as the word of God…. In fact, there are no biblical texts … to support the conclusions of FS…. A first observation is that there is no basis for this new usage in the biblical texts cited by FS…. For in the Bible, a blessing has to do with the order that God has created and that he has declared to be good. This order is based on the sexual difference of male and female, called to be one flesh. Blessing a reality that is contrary to creation is not only impossible, it is blasphemy.
Amen to that.
————
Philip Primeau is a layman of the Diocese of Providence. He is a husband, a father of four, and an attorney. He may be contacted at primeau.philip1@gmail.com.
Introduction
A faithful son or daughter of the Church, endowed with the faculty of reason and the virtue of prudence, must avoid two equally disastrous extremes in responding to the recent declaration of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Fiducia Supplicans: On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings (“FS”). These extremes may be given the colloquial labels of “popesplaining” and “popebashing.” The former tendency exhibits an utter inability to critically examine the words of the Holy Father; the latter tendency exhibits an utter inability to receive the words of the Holy Father with due care and reflection. Both tendencies require that the Holy Father be read in a dishonest and disjointed manner, so that his every pronouncement is rendered altogether wholesome or altogether poisonous. Unsurprisingly, FS has popesplainers and popebashers out in force. This article provides a measured look at the document, neither popesplaining nor popebashing, but candidly reviewing its substance and frankly identifying its strengths and weaknesses.
Briefly refuting two common arguments
Initially, two popular arguments concerning FS must be considered and refuted.
The first argument contends that FS “changes nothing.” This is manifestly false. FS claims to offer an “innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings,” and to constitute a “real development from what has been said about blessings” (Presentation, emphasis added). Undeniably, there is something new here – the only question is what.
The second argument is that FS does not endorse the blessing of irregular and same-sex relationships per se, but rather the blessing of individuals who happen to be in such relationships. Again, this is manifestly false. The express aim of FS is to ascertain “the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex,” such that “all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships [might] be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit” (31, emphasis added). In short, FS teaches that certain goods subsist in irregular and same-sex relationships, and that, insofar as these goods are present, the relationships themselves, and the “couples” produced by and through said relationships, are appropriate objects of blessing.
What does FS actually say?
Having dispensed with those meritless but common arguments, let us examine what FS actually says.
Preliminarily, FS affirms the “perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage”: namely, that marriage is the “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children” (4). It also proposes that this vision of marriage is rooted in reason and revelation alike (4-5). Contrary to some extravagant headlines, there is no alteration to the Church’s constant teaching concerning marriage. Quite the opposite: FS reiterates the doctrine that the world finds so offensive.
Further, in an effort to safeguard marriage, FS rejects “rites and prayers” that might “create confusion between what constitutes marriage . . . and what contradicts it” (4). Indeed, FS forbids any ritual or “liturgical or semi-liturgical act” for the blessing of irregular and same-sex couples (36, 38). Relatedly, it states that blessings cannot occur during a civil union ceremony (“not even in connection [therewith]”); nor, for that matter, can blessings occur in circumstances that feature “any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding” (39). In short, FS makes abundantly clear that there is a blessing proper to marriage, and that this blessing is absolutely inappropriate for alternative arrangements (4-6). Catholicism knows no “marriage-lite.”
So much for what FS disallows. What then does it allow? It principally contemplates and permits spontaneous and informal blessings of irregular and same-sex couples (21, 23, 28, 35, 36, 38) in contexts without any association with marriage or civil union (for a sample of such contexts, see 40). The purpose of these blessings is to give thanks and beg the increase of certain goods supposedly inhering in irregular and same-sex relationships – e.g., “peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance” (38) – and also to beseech an outpouring of grace meant to establish the divine will in the lives of those being blessed (id.).
Arguably, such blessings were heretofore proscribed by the then-CDF’s Responsum ad dubium de benedictione unionem personarum eiusdem sexus et Nota esplicativa of March 2021 (“Responsum”), which answered in the negative the question, “Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?” The Responsum explained that “it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex,” even if said relationships contain “positive elements,” because such elements “cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan” (Explanatory Note).
Of course, FS positions itself as nuancing, rather than contradicting, the Responsum. It does so by ostensibly “broaden[ing] and enrich[ing]” the Church’s understanding of blessings (Presentation). In particular, it posits that blessings cannot be strictly viewed as sacramentals, nor necessarily tied to the liturgy (as supposed by the Responsum) (9-13). Instead, some blessings are best understood as “pastoral gesture[s]” (12), articulations of “popular piety,” whereby people ask priests to intervene with God on their behalf outside a sacramental-liturgical situation (23-30).
FS holds that, within this framework, both “ascending” and “descending” blessings (i.e., prayers thanking and imploring God) may appropriately be imparted upon couples in irregular and same-sex relationships. To what end? “[T]hat God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his Spirit—what classical theology calls ‘actual grace’—so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love” (31, emphasis added). With such blessings, however, “there is no intention to legitimize anything, but rather to open one’s life to God, to ask for [H]is help to live better, and also to invoke the Holy Spirit” (40, emphasis added).
The good, the bad, the confusing
What can be said in favor of FS? Undeniably, it recites fundamental truths concerning marriage, and it does so directly and unapologetically. (Some will say that mere orthodoxy is a low bar for the Holy See, but nevertheless.) Additionally, it theoretically precludes any ritualization of blessings for irregular or same-sex couples, depriving progressives of a longtime desideratum. Moreover, FS rightly stresses that God lavishes His gifts upon all men, and that ministers of Christ must be ready to mediate between God and any person who wishes to praise Him and request the fruits of His kindness. If the Church has previously been unwilling to adequately intercede on behalf of a particular “category” of sinner owing to cultural prejudice, FS is a good reminder that the Church is and must be greater than the culture, which it is summoned to transform.
Yet the document’s deficiencies are several and significant. First, it fails to forthrightly acknowledge that irregular and same-sex relationships diverge materially from natural and divine law, and it avoids unequivocally calling persons engaged in such relationships to repentance, conversion, and chastity. Second, it gives the misimpression that the Church is reconsidering its doctrine of human sexuality, which is bound to disappoint those expecting radical change, since such a reconsideration is impossible. Third, it fails to anticipate its own exploitation by progressives inside and outside the Church, who will use FS as an opportunity to undermine the very doctrine it purports to preserve. Fourth, its attempt to evacuate blessings of sacramental and liturgical meaning is unconvincing, given that the blessings in question are bestowed by priests, who are distinguished by their peculiar role in the sacramental economy and the public worship of the Church.
Above all, FS raises, without answering, a serious question: How can the ministers of the Church, standing in and for Christ, bless a relationship – not just the individuals in the relationship, but the relationship itself, as shown above – that is, by its very nature, sinful? And how can it do so without “legitimizing” such a relationship, if only implicitly or accidentally? Granted, certain goods invariably arise within the course of irregular and same-sex relationships. But there is scarcely a human relationship, a human society, devoid of some good. Further, the distinction between the goods of the relationship and the relationship itself smacks of the very manualistic sophistry that Pope Francis habitually condemns. There is also a question as to whether the goods that FS seeks to make available for blessing are not in fact individual goods, and thus already lawful objects of blessing. For instance, the day before yesterday, apart from the broadened paradigm introduced by FS, a priest could ask God to grant to any sincere petitioner peace, health, a spirit of patience, a capacity for authentic dialogue, and so on. Why? Because these goods are proper to the individual, even if they find their fulfillment in the context of human relationship.
Conclusion(s)
Coming away from a close reading of FS, one wonders many things. Where is the hope of eternal gain? Where is the fear of eternal loss? Where is the call to perfection? Where is the crucifixion of the flesh with its passions and desires? Where is the contempt for this age? Where is the love of purity, continence, and separation from the world? Where is the hatred of sin? Where is the yearning for heavenly splendor and the redemption of the body? Where is the exhortation to weeping? Where is the promise of a new heart? Where is the warning of a darkened mind? The cry of the prophet is not here. The wisdom of the cross is not here. The charity of our Lord Jesus Christ is not here: that charity which is so luminous, so consuming, so spotless, so terrible, so grave.
FS apparently emerges from a worldview wherein irregular and same-sex relationships are less than ideal, maybe even problematic, but certainly not grievously displeasing to God and ruinous to the welfare of the human person. This is a worldview built not on the divine science of human salvation, informed by Holy Scripture and the wisdom of the fathers and doctors of the Church, but on the natural science of psycho-social human satisfaction, informed by the usual cast of secularized and anthropocentric disciplines. FS admittedly appeals to the Sacred Writings, but hastily and superficially. It makes only glancing reference to Sacred Tradition. It relies primarily on the teaching of Pope Francis. Given the document’s magnitude, its limited range of authorities is startling. It will take substantial theological work to integrate its contents into the greater body of Catholic teaching.
At present, FS creates an acute tension between pious practice and doctrine, complicating the ancient rule that the Church believes as it prays and prays as it believes. It therefore risks obscuring the truth and sowing confusion. Although its substance is amenable to an orthodox construction, it is liable to manipulation by antagonists of the faith inside and outside the Church, an outcome that Cardinal Fernandez and Pope Francis must have anticipated. That they opted to invite ambiguity and obfuscation is blameworthy. Some have speculated that FS is a masterful piece of Jesuitical triangulation, heading off schism by handing everyone half a loaf. Perhaps. Perhaps even this text will yield some fruit. It might, for instance, give pastors occasion to reflect on how they can better draw men of every circumstance, sinners all, into the depths of God’s mercy.
But one inevitably reaches a bleak conclusion: FS leaves the sheep bewildered and the wolves emboldened. It did not have to be this way. Our Lord appointed Peter to confirm his brethren. Now, however, bishop will war against bishop, local church against local church; in the haze of uncertainty, strife will prevail. Meanwhile, faithful Catholics will endure doubt and disturbance. It did not have to be this way. Regardless, let us eschew popesplaining and popebashing both, and pray for Francis, Bishop of Rome, mother and mistress of the churches of God. More than ever, let us pray for him.
————
Fr. Jerry J. Pokorsky is a priest of the Diocese of Arlington. He is pastor of St. Catherine of Siena parish in Great Falls, Virginia.
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith recently released Fiducia Supplicans (“On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings”), which allows the blessing of “same-sex couples.” In some ways, it is the crown jewel of the pontificate of Pope Francis. The Holy Father’s approval not only signals his endorsement for the blessing of homosexual unions, but he also retains plausible deniability.
This document is a word salad of ambiguity: A subordinate dicastery released the lengthy platitudinous narrative with the approval of the Pope. But its nomenclature and teaching status is deliberately unclear. (What does Cardinal Fernandez mean by “same-sex couples, for example? The reader immediately assumes he is speaking of homosexual couples–including various forms of sodomy. But the Cardinal–and the Pope—could easily deny the implication.)
The document unleashes “gay” activist priests like James Martin, S.J., to simulate marriage validations in the blessing of “gay” couples. (Martin has already leaped at the chance and will never suffer any censure by ecclesiastical authorities. After all, his frequent meetings with Pope Francis validate his reputation as a favored son.) The document allows the Pope to ignore the German bishops who are already blessing “gay” unions.
The document prompts worried (or merely self-deluded) bishops to stumble over themselves to affirm that it carries “no doctrinal changes.” It provokes faithful priests to outrage because they see the same thing the mainstream media sees. It pits faithful priests and bishops against one another.
The document leaves “gay” activists untouched in cultivating a willing public to expect the Church to approve “gay marriage” sometime soon down the road (expecting Catholic doctrine to succumb to events). For all intents and purposes, the document signals that Vatican authorities will permit “gay” priests to bless “gay” unions with impunity.
The document continues the tradition of “studied ambiguity” identified by then-Cardinal Ratzinger in his 1985 letter as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In his “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons”, he writes:
[T]his Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful.
Many bishops likely see what the Pope intends but go through mental gymnastics to support papal policies and hold to Catholic teaching. The effort is futile and, at best, may, for a time, deflect Vatican retribution (avoiding the fate of Bishop Strickland and Cardinal Burke).
Faithful Catholics are again forsaken and abused. The handful of outraged priests are deemed hateful, unpastoral, rigid, and dangerous. Liberals no longer claim a monopoly on those smears that extend back to the 1960s. The liberals now have allies from across the spectrum. Bishops and priests who refuse to acknowledge the “studied ambiguity” of the document and insist it carries “no doctrinal changes” will look at outraged priests with suspicion because they refuse to conform to their delusions. The mainstream press sees through the studied ambiguities and recognizes the reality that many bishops and priests refuse to see.
The document is a genius Machiavellian move because it divides faithful priests and bishops. It is even more sinister because the Vatican released it the week before Christmas, sabotaging Catholic focus on the Birth of Jesus. The document brilliantly weaponizes platitudes, cruelly taking advantage of the goodwill of priests and bishops.
But the Holy Father (and many of the ostrich bishops) may have forgotten an unexploded bomb from the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. In 2001, Pope John Paul II famously apologized for the extensive historical sins of members of the Church. In 1999, then-Cardinal Ratzinger commissioned a theological study that acknowledged: “An historical hermeneutic is therefore more necessary than ever in order to distinguish correctly between the action of the Church as community of faith and that of society in the times when an osmosis existed between them.”
Within a decade [please, God!] or a century, a future pope will likely apologize for the distortions of Catholic doctrine by Pope Francis and his collaborators.
Here is another unexploded bomb from Saint Paul:
For I am not ashamed of the gospel… For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them. (Rom. 1:16-32)
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.
Thank you for publishing these penetrating comments. In brief response to each:
To Dr. Robert Gagnon about vocabulary, rather than “union” which the blundering Fernandez is now trying to walk back (a in synodally “walking together ‘backwards'”?), or even “couple,” yours truly has sometimes found useful the mechanical term “coupling,” butt now will seek something even more fitting, so to speak.
To Philip Primeau, not only are the “sheep bewildered,” but most of the shepherds have become sheep. The Declaration herds them in this direction by pontificating that no discourse or interpretation is permitted. Happily, some bishops can notice when they–as personally accountable Successors of the Apostles–are being editorially castrated.
To Fr. Porkowsky, not only is the Declaration destructive of the Christmas event and the Holy Family, or any family, but on a broader scale we can be sure that Synod 2024 will aim at recasting Nicaea (1700th anniversary in 2025) as a synodal harmonizing of non-parliamentary consensus, rather than as a faithful remembering and, therefore, a non-inclusive rejection (!) of Arianism.
All three give convincing rationale of moral impropriety of Fiducia Supplicans. Attorney Philip Primeau offers the more concise drawbacks, “It avoids unequivocally calling persons engaged in such relationships to repentance, conversion, and chastity. It is liable to manipulation by antagonists of the faith inside and outside the Church, an outcome that Cardinal Fernandez and Pope Francis must have anticipated”.
Dr Gagnon especially and Fr Pokorsky offer strong biblical theological egregiousness of homosexual sin Pokorsky also in agreement with Primeau ending with “The document is a genius Machiavellian move because it divides faithful priests and bishops”. The document is clearly divisive, and beyond in that it establishes a utilitarian ethics that supplants the revelation of Christ. “The happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not one’s own happiness, but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator” (John Stuart Mill)
Let’s have an article featuring an Evangelical Protestant and a Catholic layman commenting on Humanae Vitae. I’m sure it wouldn’t take much time at all to find two who take serious issue with the Church’s teaching on this matter.
With all proper respects, dear Thomas James: HV is based on the Apostolic witness, FS perverts it shamelessly.
Most likely FS is the cutting edge of PF & friends’ program to bless homosexual lifestyles among popes, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, & other clergy.
Curial expressions of compassion for & blessing of lay homosexual relationships is simply an entrée for what at heart is the first step of a push to normalize clerical homosexual activity. Saint Peter Damien please pray for them!
Ever seeking to hear & lovingly obey The LORD Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
Dear Marty: It’s too bad the Holy Father doesn’t have you as his own personal advisor. Your perspective is unique and unheard of, and it would do the world and the Church tremendous good if Pope Francis could hear these unheard of points that you provide.
A bit too prickly, are we?
Mr. Gagnon’s assessment strikes me as completely correct.
Bergoglio is doing evil here, actually pitting the Church of Jesus Christ against the will of its founder.
This is not “development” or “accompaniment.” It is, as Mr. Gagnon says, blasphemy.
In my view, Bergoglio is doing the will of the unholy spirit.
He has let the wolves into the sheepfold.
Kind friend, unfortunately, Bergoglio is one of the wolves that have been let in.
Deeply felt appreciation to CWR Staff, Dr Robert A. J. Gagnon, Phillip Primeau, & Fr Jerry J. Pokorsky for so clearly stating the Catholic Faith of our LORD Jesus Christ & His Church-founding Apostles; for so carefully dissecting the many subtle yet pernicious errors of ‘Fiducia Supplicans’; and for charitably reproving those who authored its calculated twisting of sound Christian doctrine and godly tradition, in flagrant contempt of their risk of eternal damnation.
Ever in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
This erroneous document not only is, in essence, a document of gross irreverence towards God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, The Papacy, and any person seeking to be reconciled to God, because it refuses to apply The Charitable Anathema, making it appear as if it is Loving and Merciful that we or a Loved one remain in our sin, and not desire to overcome our disordered inclinations towards sin, repent, and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy. For if it were true that it is Loving and Merciful that we remain in our sins, we would have no need for Our Only Savior, Jesus The Christ. It would thus be gross irreverence not to call a Council, even if only a remnant Of The Faithful remain, for the sake of Christ, His Church, all who will come to believe, even if it be, like The Good Thief, who at the hour of his death recognized Christ In All His Glory, and the multitude of prodigals, beloved sons and daughters, who, hopefully will soon return to The One Body Of Christ, outside of which, there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).
What good has Victor “hotlips” done since becoming Prefect? Let him go out and do these things with hangers on like Jimmy Martin and leave good clerics alone to do normal things!!!!
I think some of this angst comes from the direction everyone went when it was stated that we should “hate the sin” but “love the sinner”. Why did we separate the two? Punish the sin but not the sinner? What did it all mean? And has it led to today’s divisions?
Hate the sin but love the sinner is something that goes back to the Gospels, and further.
We separate the two because the sinner is made in the image of God, and it is fitting to love him as God does (if God didn’t hold each of us in existence, we would cease to exist). “for thou wouldst not have made anything if thou hadst hated it.” ~ Wisdom 11 Yet it is also evident, going back just as far, that God hates sin and wants us to hate it as well. “The Lord loves those who hate evil.” Psalm 97
The practical application of this can be challenging in a society that has conflated the attitude toward what a person does with the attitude toward the person themselves. We have generations in families where children were either disciplined harshly with little real affection, or were allowed to get away with anything as parents tried to be friends, and therefore we have generations that have little or no experience with a kind rebuke or a loving punishment, and therefore they think hatred of sin requires hatred of the person, or that loving the person requires loving everything they do. They associate badly, and therefore react badly.
At the heart of Liberty Is Christ, “4For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5Have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come…”, to not believe that Christ’s Sacrifice On The Cross will lead us to Salvation, but we must desire forgiveness for our sins, and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy; believe in The Power And The Glory Of Salvation Love, and rejoice in the fact that No Greater Love Is There Than This, To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved.
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
“Blessed are they who are Called to The Marriage Supper Of The Lamb.”
“For where your treasure is there will your heart be also.”
“Truth In Love; Love In Truth”, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost(Filioque)
Now this is our Sacred Heritage-
It is a sin to accomodate an occasion of sin, and thus cooperate with evils.”
22You adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know.
https://biblehub.com/drbc/john/4.htm
“Salvation is of the Jews; from The Father, Through The Son, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).
“It’s not marriage,” is the only salvageable takeaway, and of what help is that when the bulk of young people (and a shocking number of older people as well) don’t give a fig about “regular unions”? The same-sex crowd insisted they had to have marriage itself in order to be on a par with heterosexuals, and yet how few really care about the institution as an exclusive, life-long union open to life?
It leaves us with an enormous shrug over the state of conjugal life around the world—when that is God’s precious design for the family, the healthy formation of children, the essential building block of society, the source of religious vocations, and the very future of the Church. Dr Gagnon has illustrated the scope of the problem, for to shrug at this means that the grave sexual evils engulfing the world leave the Holy Father indifferent to the laceration of his flock.
Mr Primeau may be right about how we are to parse this and remain faithful Catholics, but Fr Pokorsky nails it when he calls it Machiavellian. How do the simplest children have a chance with such a “father”? Our Lord was clear about scandal.
A very insightful commentary that crosses all the “T’s” and dots all the “I’s”. The sad truth is that we rarely seen to be addressing the recurring elephant in the room. Why? Why was it necessary that this clarification of blessings be issued now? Clearly the synod had some influence on it, but why do we keep arguing the fine points to exhaustion rather than identifying what Spirit is at work in the church? Just as there is one God, one faith, one baptism, there is a singular force working against Him. I sit at mass every week and hear that Spirit at work within the church. I am no different than many in having children who are indifferent about their faith, having been taught in catholic high school that Salvation is universal. The church actively emphasizes that “Nothing can separate us from the love of God.” Not suicide, not divorce, not homosexuality, not sin. This is the homily spoken from the altar. I am no intellectual, nor am I any lettered, titled, whatever theologian. But I know this. There is no fear of the Lord. Because of that, there is no wisdom. There is no faith. Truth is lost. All we have is words. Do we really believe that a priest who cleverly crafts a blessing to comply with this current directive will have the power of the church and God in heaven behind it? We should instead preach the Word of God in all truth. 1Peter 3:12.
Genevieve has pointed out the problem with the Pontiff Francis: he is acting out like an abusive father.
I believe that in the case of the Pontiff Francis, and that of Eminence Hollerich and many of the cohort of what Austen Ivereigh has called “Team Francis,” their minds are in the darkness of their lifelong alliance with the homosexual subculture living parasitically inside The Body of Christ.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God, all things were made through him, and without him, nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”
Christ, contradicting the Pontiff Francis, has commanded us to obey a very high moral standard regarding sexual morality. “You have heard it said, ‘you shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
“If you love me, keep my commandments.”
Thank you CWR for this.
Father Pokorsky gave his typically good and well-reasoned response to this issue.
I was especially impressed by Dr. Robert A. J Gagnon. He clearly and forcefully articulated the evil results that will necessarily flow from FS.
Philip Primeau’s article, until the last paragraph, seems to be, “well on the one hand this but on the other hand that”.
In describing those with a very negative reaction to FS, he describes them as popebashing, the tendency [to exhibit] “an utter inability to critically examine the words of the Holy Father.” But we have had over ten years to examine the words of the Holy Father. He goes on to say, “Preliminarily, FS affirms the “perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage”. Well yes, but that is not at all what this document is about. Father Murray, a canon layer and commentator on EWTN calls this a conclusion in search of an argument to support the conclusion. He went on to say, as I understood him, that the primary harm of this document will be to normalize mortal sin.
Thanks again to CWR for these three thought provoking articles.
Mr. George Bergoglio has certainly made a mess of things in the Church as he promised.
Does anyone else wonder if the metaphorical “beheadings” of Strickland and Burke taking place shortly before Fiducia Supplicans was promulgated was intentional? A warning to prelates to remain silent regarding FS?
Ha! I was thinking the same thing. The Vatican equivalent to waking up with a horse’s head in your bed.
How right you are! Nothing stifles hierarchical dissent more effectively than scapegoating an honest prelate or two. Back in the Bad Old Days, the Big Brothers of the world actually had to put on a show trial. Imagine how tedious it must have been to have to plant false testimony in the mouths of cowering witnesses. The Internet allows Pope Francis to create the same effect without having to make so much as an allegation.
Forgive my pettiness, but there’s a typo in the Latin title of the Responsum: ‘unionem’ should read ‘unionum’.
A priest can NEVER have the right to bless mortal sin. Case closed.
Thank you CWR for this excellent set of articles on this disaster being lowered on our Church by our current leaders.
A much more substantial response to this matter than the prior articles in CWR.
What then should Catholics wishing to remain loyal to the Deposit of the Faith and perennial doctrine do? We should continue to remain loyal to the Chair of Peter insofar as it is instituted by Christ. Although if the person who holds the Chair is manifestly in conflict with the faith revealed by Christ and conveyed by the Apostles we’re certainly not required to submit to what is sinful. In this way we remain loyal to Christ and the Church as it was instituted by Our Lord. Similarly if what promotes sin and the loss of souls is propagated, we’re obliged to reveal that error or errors to the faithful and instruct them to follow tradition.
Thanks, Father. Part of your focused catechesis can also be summed up a bit by the following:
When the Pope acts more like Peter, he sits on a steady chair and remains upright, but when he acts more like Simon, he sits on a rocking chair and falls frequently.
Very well put, dear Fr Peter Morello, PhD. Of crucial importance for all Catholics.
Well said.
I would add the need to forgive and pray for the Cardinal and Pope.
In addition to the comments provided by Fr. Pokorsky and Philip Primeau, Dr. Gagnon’s comments also contain some thoughtful wisdom that can benefit many Catholics. In appreciation, let us pray that extra wisdom will be granted to Dr. Gagnon as soon as possible to enable him to become a member of Jesus’ One True Church and leave heretical Protestantism behind.
There are indeed some serious flaws in Fiducia Supplicans that can and will be rejected by faithful Catholics, but there are many more serious flaws in all forms of Protestantism that are fully embraced by Protestants. Dr. Gagnon sees the flaws in Fiducia Supplicans while remaining blind to the many more flaws in his own branch of Protestantism and Protestantism in general.
Near the end of his piece, Dr. Gagnon mentions that Cardinal Müller’s application of biblical wisdom “warmed” his Protestant heart. Imagine how much warmer his heart would be if he humbly followed the biblical wisdom of the entire Catholic Church instead of the inadequate wisdom and errors he consumes in his Protestant church.
Dear ‘TDV’.
Self-righteous, triumphalist, protestant-thumping should not blind us to the genuinely Apostolic critique and Holy Spirit-filled wisdom of Dr Gagnon’s discernment of many false pretensions to Christian leadership in FS.
THINK: is there not far more unity among us New Testament-honoring Catholics & the New Testament-honoring Protestants, than between us and so-called Catholics who are obstinate in flagrantly disparaging & disobeying the Holy Spirit-inspired, Apostolic testimony of The New Testament.
But I agree, The Church would welcome in Dr Gagnon, to help us save the sabotaged ship.
Always aspiring to follow King Jesus Christ; love & blessings fom marty
A very thoughtful outreach, TDV. Too many Catholics have a misunderstanding of Ecumenism, and so they shy away from even praying for our separated brethren to renounce their heresies and become Catholic. Let’s face it. They don’t believe such is all that important or even necessary.
But you properly understand that praying and working for the conversion of all Protestants because the errors in Protestantism keep them away from the fullness of Truth and Faith is still a solemn duty of all good Catholics. I gladly join you in praying for Dr. Gagnon’s conversion along with the conversion of all other Protestants, and not in a selfish way because of some of the gifts that he and they might bring to the Church, but primarily for the benefit of their souls. Incidentally, any gifts that converts bring to the Church will be even greater when they are no longer disabled by their false understanding of the Gospel.
One of the legitimate criticisms of Fiducia Supplicans is its failure to lovingly point out the errors of the sinful lifestyle of those seeking to be blessed in the hopes that the unstated truth will eventually motivate them to repent. However, when it comes to those who embrace heretical Protestantism, lovingly pointing out their errors to show them why conversion to Catholicism is the wise thing to do is considered by some to be mean-spirited and a self-righteous form of triumphalism just to bash Protestantism. These same people have for years practiced the way of Fiducia Supplicans by just hoping that a few Protestants will convert to the Faith without understanding why they need to give up the errors of Protestantism.
You go, TDV.
Thank you so much dear ‘Pat Proton’for these searching (& revealing) comments. As a faithful Catholic, please pray & reflect on the following:
Those protestants who obey Father God’s commandments, witness to the truth of The Gospel of Jesus Christ, & conform their lives to The Holy Spirit-anointed Apostolic New Testament have a deep unity with many sincere Catholics like me (having deep Irish Catholic ancestry, including saints & martyrs).
Those nominal Catholic lay & clergy (seemingly legion these days) who disobey God, trivialize The Gospel, & disregard the teachings of The Apostles & the Church Fathers, manifestly lack that unity.
See John 5:44 “How can you believe since you look to one another for approval and are not concerned with the approval that comes from the one God?”
See John 9:31 “We know that God does not listen to sinners but listens to those who are devout and do God’s will.”
‘Un-Christian Catholic’ is an oxymoron. We all must take warning from Jesus’ teaching in John 5:45:
“Do not imagine that I [Jesus] am going to accuse you before The Father: you place your hopes on Moses [The Church], and Moses [The Church] will be your accuser.” That is the proper basis for our doctrine of: ‘No salvation outside The Church.’ It is Jesus’ Church that accuses or commends at The Judgment.
The Church being our Most Blessed Mother Mary, the 12 Apostles, with a vast assembly of Saints & Martyrs. The true children of our Most Blessed Mother Mary are those who obey God’s commandments & bear faithful witness to Jesus (Revelation 12:17b).
The Catholic Church organization at any point in history is but a miniscule part of the Immense Church Triumphant. If, at any stage, the worldly Catholic organization is unfaithful, it loses even that miniscule significance.
All this is basic to God’s revelation, yet apparently unknown to some Catholics.
On Judgment Day, sincerely Christian Protestants will be approved by The Church as numbered among her true Catholic children; un-Christian Catholics will not be so numbered by The Church. How bitter it will be for both catholic & protestant if our faith proves to have been in humans not in Christ (Matthew 7:21-23; 8:11-12).
As our LORD Jesus Christ instructs: God The Father seeks sincere worshippers who worship Him in spirit & in truth; Jewish & Samaritan; Catholic & Protestant.
God is not seeking triumphalists, who seem to emulate the self-assertive scribes & pharisees who excluded our LORD.
Does this diminish Catholicism: No! It just instructs us to be servants not bosses.
Hope you are having a lovely Christmas Day in the USA. It’s Saint Stephen’s Day here in Australia.
Ever in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
Thanks, PP:
You also fully understand what’s involved, and your application to Fiducia Supplicans is especially insightful and apropos.
Like me, you are not even close to being a triumphalist as one person falsely suggests/judges us to be because we recognize the perennial teaching of the Church that there is no salvation outside the Church (of course, salvation is not guaranteed to anyone inside our outside the Church), and so in greater love we reach out and pray for conversion to the One True Faith.
As I am sure you also know, sincerity without invincible ignorance will not help a person achieve salvation, so let us ignore the false accusations and continue to reach out as truly loving brothers and sisters, preach and teach objective truth, and pray for the conversion of Protestants and all others outside the Church. Deus Vult!
Hi, dear TDV & dear PP. One hesitates to labor the point, but you both seem to be claiming that a person’s mere protestation of membership of The Catholic Church is somehow of spiritual advantageous to them.
Nominal Catholic lay & clergy seem legion these days, many disobeying God, trivializing The Gospel, & disregarding the teachings of The Apostles & the Catholic Church’s Saints & Elders. They seem to lack understanding or willfully prefer a life of sin in flagrant disregard of our Master Jesus’s instructions.
Surely, we should admit that their claims of Catholicity are empty & valueless?
See John 5:44 “How can you believe since you look to one another for approval and are not concerned with the approval that comes from the one God?”
See John 9:31 “We know that God does not listen to sinners but listens to those who are devout and do God’s will.”
‘Christ-disobedient Catholic’ is thus an oxymoron. Sadly, it is far too common.
We all must take warning from Jesus’ teaching in John 5:45:
“Do not imagine that I [Jesus] am going to accuse you before The Father: you place your hopes on Moses [The Church], and Moses [The Church] will be your accuser.”
That is the proper basis for our good doctrine of: ‘NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH.’ It is Christ Jesus’ Church Triumphant that accuses or commends us at The Judgment.
THE CHURCH being our Most Blessed Mother Mary, the 12 Apostles, & the vast assembly of saints & martyrs who have loved & obeyed Jesus. The true children of our Most Blessed Mother Mary are those who obey God’s commandments & bear faithful witness to Jesus (Revelation 12:17b). Obviously, a Protestant may fit that Holy Scriptural definition as much as a Catholic.
Hoping you will agree that Christ-loving-and-obeying-protestants have far more chance of being approved by THE CHURCH, at judgment, than do Christ-demeaning-and-disobeying catholics, who will be accused by THE CHURCH.
Hoping these few observations are helpful, dear TDV & dear PP. They are summarized in Holy Scripture as: “God knows those who love God!”
Our challenge, then, as Catholic or Protestant Christians, is to use every means we have to seek & find Jesus Christ, who will guide us in the way, the truth, & the life that will attract the approval of THE CHURCH when we face Judgment. Mere claims of membership will not pass-muster (see Matthew 7:21-23).
Always seeking to hear & obey King Jeus Christ; love & blessings from marty
Dear Marty: if you feel compelled to criticize my comments and the comments of others who agree with me, please have the decency to not mischaracterize and misstate what we have stated in straw man argument fashion to disingenuously knock down claims we have not made, yet falsely attributed to us by you. This is not only wrong; it’s also quite sad.
Also, your understanding of Church teaching regarding those outside the Church is simply not accurate, and so it is merely your take on it that leaves out essential elements you apparently don’t like since they do not open the gates of Heaven to those who are not suffering from invincible ignorance of the truth regarding the requirement to belong to the One True Faith.
A few particulars now in opposition to your positions, and note how I will set forth what you actually state instead of mischaracterizing it.
You write in part that “The true children of our Most Blessed Mother Mary are those who obey God’s commandments & bear faithful witness to Jesus (Revelation 12:17b). Obviously, a Protestant may fit that Holy Scriptural definition as much as a Catholic.”
A Protestant or anyone else can Only fit that definition As Much As a Catholic if he or she accepts all that the Catholic Church definitively teaches, and is in fact Catholic. Those who obey God’s commandments must also follow His commandment to be fully part of His One True Church. Witnessing to Jesus Christ must also witness to all that He mandated must be done. As such, what you claim is obvious is logically impossible since even the most sincere God-fearing Protestant cannot serve God As Much As a Catholic CAN. But of course, because a Catholic can serve God more fully than any Protestant can, this does not mean that he or she will actually do so, and I have never claimed otherwise as you have wrongly attributed this to me and, by extension, all others who follow definitive Church teaching in this regard.
Still, in the sincere hopes that you will not purposely mischaracterize my position yet again, a Protestant or anyone else can bear Sufficient witness and be granted salvation IF he or she is invincibly ignorant of the truth but pursues it Sincerely regarding the requirements of Our Lord’s Church that, of course, are not limited to Biblical statements on the matter.
Next, my dear Marty, your ongoing comparison of unfaithful and extremely sinful Catholics with more God-fearing, less sinful Protestants has absolutely nothing to do with the most blessed duty of Catholics to reach out to Protestants and others to seek their conversion to the One True Faith so they can serve God More Fully than what is possible outside the Catholic Church. This joyful duty can also serve to help save the souls of those Protestants who are not invincibly ignorant of Jesus’ mandates, but who proudly maintain that they can serve God as they see fit regardless of what Jesus commands.
Lastly regarding your specific claims, it is indeed a spiritual advantage and benefit to be part of Christ’s One True Church, which is the Catholic Church. Whether or not all brothers and sisters in the Faith make the most out of this or squander it is another matter. However, neither I nor others who correctly hold this Catholic position ever claim that our membership in and of itself is some kind of a guarantee of Heaven, and yet dear Marty, you have repeatedly accused us or at least wrongly inferred that we maintain such a position.
Some words of wisdom from the holy Bishop, Athanasius Schneider, as presented in his compendium of the Catholic Faith (NB: though only a compendium, it bears the imprimatur of Peter Libasci, Bishop of Manchester), to put a nice Christmas bow on this topic:
Section 1, Question 215: Does the Holy Spirit use false religions to impart grace and salvation to man?
Answer: No. Although God is able to give graces to a man who practices a false religion in view of his innocent ignorance and sincere good will, such graces would in nowise be mediated by or owing to the false religion itself. Rather, grace may be given despite the man’s error, and in order to lead him out of that error into the truth of right faith.
Section 1, Question 219: Do Christians have an obligation toward those living in various forms of religious error?
Answer: Yes. We are ordered to make God’s revelation clearly known to the ends of the earth, drawing all men into the one true Church established by Christ.
Thank you for these three essays. Very helpful!
Keeping in mind the vast global illiterate audience of Catholics (and non-Catholics) is that “FS” is WRONG. Why? It is contrary to Scipture; deliberately ambiguous; thus breeds confusion, a source of division, which undermines the vital unity of Christ’s Holy Catholic Church. I dare say that the Lord will sign on to FS. I leave scholars and theologians to split words. I prefer clarity for the sake of my audience. Let known be offended that I choose to clear, not ambiguous, for sake of my audience, the vast number of global Catholic and non-Catholic iliterates in remote parishes looking for the plain truth. Why do I value that so highly? Because, as a Catholic, instructed to do the work of an evangelist (2Tim.4:5),scriptural truth, spoken clearly and kindly, is vital to reaching my audience, including protestants, especially ex-Catholic protestants (2Tim.4:4-4)
for Christ. Who knows how many will leave the Church because of FS? I get many “I told you so” comments from protestants. It takes scriptural truth spoken kindly to stand firmly for Christ’s 1 Holy Catholic Church at times like this. Those who seek to undermine the Holy Catholic Church keep getting help from inside the Church. We are not done cleaning the smears of “priest abuse,” now this, as they conveniently see it: the Pope approves blessing of same-sex marriage. They are scholarly enough to split words. As for the Church, I trust only the inviolable promises of Christ her founder (Mt.16:18 & Jn.16:33).
[ln first sentence, I meant to say,: “my comment is that FS is WRONG.”
Your meaning is plain and true and the same observations were made here where I live, yesterday evening, among my acquaintances. Those who do not have the faith already know it is wrong. Those who have some faith have it from faith as wrong. It is the vast majority of the world who knows that the homosexual relationship even without sexuality is unnatural-depraved-depraving and against chasteness/chastity in its true meaning.
One way to express this is, that they want a connectivity between them only a man and a woman can share when married. Men and women do try to share it when not married and that is wrong.
Therefore you see further that “distinguishing” the homosexual “friendship” as “not to do with marriage” is a lie made into a deception aimed at deceiving even more.
On the eve of Christmas Eve, I invite you to reflect on how the innocence of a child’s soul would like to see Love awaken in their hearts.
Let’s ask why there was such a damn problem about blasphemous blessings after all.
The problem only exists because certain people want it to exist.
The problem exists because the practice of blasphemous blessings exists, and they want to establish a right to coexist with the moral condemnation of the act.
Will You Come to Mass?
In a very abbreviated form, in the face of extremely high beauty:
we have the collect prayer – collective supplication to God the Father, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, Readings, Communion (“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself – 1Cor 11,27-29) – forgiveness for accidental parenthesis in the gospel when begging the Lord’s mercy. The Mass is, for this reason, the greatest event in the history of humanity: angels, intercession of the saints and deceased relatives and friends who are in the beatific vision, anticipated for the living in baptism and the Eucharist, Real Presence, blessings for being together at that moment.
Next to us we often see people we don’t live with, but they are there, in current grace when they accepted the invitation that Christ addresses all the time to all human beings, others in sanctifying grace – praised be Our Lord Jesus Christ, and I pray that everyone be silent and attentive from the beginning of Mass.
Right after we prayed ‘The Lord’s Prayer’, all together, prayer and blessing, right? We then have the Prayer of Peace, reserved for the priest, a prayer and blessing addressed to everyone who is breathing next to us.
This is the blessing of the Church for everyone and the end of this problem that does not exist.
So, aware that there is no problem and the Church has never stopped offering blessings to everyone, let us forward our prayers for this Christmas:
Ordained and disordered brothers and sisters, accept the invitation and come to Mass, we will pray and give thanks, together, for the blessings upon blessings.
Merry and Holy Christmas to everyone!
Amen.
Merry Christmas to you too!
The individuals responsible for the conception, composition, approval and publication of this exercise in duplicity and moral corruption have characterized themselves as having abandoned Catholic theological principles and called into question their ability to reason. We have observed this over and over again for almost eleven years. They have lost all credence, painting themselves manipulative and mendacious.
Where is the global episcopate?
I imagine the global episcopate cowering in corners, hiding in closets, swinging and trysting in sewage pipes, crawling through underground tunnels a la a terrorist, mining old coal or rare earth mineral deposits (Maybe they’ll find gold in some.), staying in plain site adversus populo, believing and hoping the mumbo-jumbo from Francis’ papal lips or pens will pass the mustard and they’ll feast again without being called or named by anyone, lay or in ecclesium.
Here: https://onepeterfive.com/bishops-of-the-world-resist-francis-to-his-face/
I’d give it until about a week after Christmas, as some take longer to digest and respond thoughtfully than others.
Philip Primeau’s distinction between popesplainers and popebashers is timely and relevant. An implicit underlying current that can be detected among popebashers is the infection on their part with the fundamental Protestant doctrine of apostasy of the Catholic church under the pastoral leadership of the Pope. This implies that the magisterium has faltered and altered the teaching of Christ and of the Church. This concept however infers basically that Jesus and the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church, which contradicts the promise of everlasting divine presence and assistance on the Church especially on Peter and his successors in the office of leading and teaching us. Read: Luke 22:32; Matthew 28:20; John 16:13. Likewise popebashers think they more Catholic than the Pope, so sure they are correct and Francis is wrong, employ the Protestantish method of personal interpretation of magisterium that resemble the Protestant method of personal interpretation of scripture. Because of the Lord’s promise of “divine assitance” on the Pope, we are required to adhere with the “obedience of faith” in cases of “supreme magisterium,” and with “religious assent” in cases of “ordinary magisterium” (of which the declaration Fiducia Supplicans is). Read: Catechism of the Catholic Church 891 & 892.
So, dear Deacon Dom, you’d be content to bless or assist in blessing male couples and female couples who are in pseudo-married sexual relationships?
If so, it’d not be before Pope Francis, Cardinal Fernandez, and Arch. Mark that you’d have to answer but in front of King Jesus Christ in Glory, at the head of His Immense Church Triumphant.
Nominal Catholic lay & clergy seem legion these days, disobeying God, trivializing The Gospel, & disregarding the teachings of The Apostles & the Church Fathers. They seem to lack understanding or willfully disregard our Master’s instructions.
See John 5:44 “How can you believe since you look to one another for approval and are not concerned with the approval that comes from the one God?”
See John 9:31 “We know that God does not listen to sinners but listens to those who are devout and do God’s will.”
‘Christ-disobedient Catholic’ is an oxymoron. We all must take warning from Jesus’ teaching in John 5:45:
“Do not imagine that I [Jesus] am going to accuse you before The Father: you place your hopes on Moses [The Church], and Moses [The Church] will be your accuser.”
That is the proper basis for our good doctrine of: ‘No salvation outside The Church.’ It is Jesus’ Church Triumphant that accuses or commends us at The Judgment.
The Church being our Most Blessed Mother Mary, the 12 Apostles, & a vast assembly of saints & martyrs. The true children of our Most Blessed Mother Mary are those who obey God’s commandments & bear faithful witness to Jesus (Revelation 12:17b).
The present Church hierarchical organization is but a miniscule part of the Immense Church Triumphant. If, at any stage, the present Catholic hierarchs are unfaithful, current Catholicism is in danger of losing even that miniscule significance.
Yet, as you say: God has and will always have some Catholics who are obedient to God & faithful to the Holy Spirit-anointed Apostolic instructions of The New Testament.
They constitute The Catholic Church Militant that’s in full communion with The Church Triumphant. It has happened in the past – the hierarchy failed disastrously but, by God’s grace, the humble Catholic Church Militant kept the barque afloat until God-fearing clerics emerged, to re-establish proper papal authority.
Dear Deacon Dom, before you bless or assist in blessing homosexuals (and thus their Christ-mocking, demonic deceit) please read and meditate on Romans 1:18-32. The Church has faced this crisis before, as you’ll find if you read the work of Saint Peter Damien.
Ever in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
Dr. Rice: I invite you to read and understand Fiducia Supplicans completely and fully which clearly shows in your opinion here to have been done on your part yet.
Dear Deacon Dom, stop obscuring & explain exactly your position in light of the three sections of this thorough, Fiducia Supplicans-informed, CWR article (which you seem not to have read or, at least, not understood).
You must address the several serious matters documented. Principally: ARE YOU willing to bless or assist in blessing male or female couples who are in homosexual relationships?
As it stands, from your comment of December 23, you ARE ready even keen to do that. Therefore, please explain how you expect to escape judgment by The Church Glorious, our Most Blessed Mother Mary, the 12 Apostles of Jesus Christ, and the immense assembly of Saints & Martyrs who have all been obedient to God’s Commandments & have proved faithful servants of The Holy Spirit-anointed Apostolic witness to Christ in The New Testament.
Please understand that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is built on over 3,500 citations from The New Testament (NT). It’s futile, Dom, to imagine that the CCC contradicts the NT.
Jesus Christ our LORD is the same yesterday, today, & forever.
Please correct me, Deacon Dom, but your position simply seems to be: “I happily set aside The New Testament of Jesus Christ and the wisdom of Church Fathers so as to do whatever I’m told by my parish priest, archbishop, & Roman Curia.”
You are old enough to recall that’s exactly what many Nazi Catholics (and Lutherans) said as justification of their hellishly un-Christain perversions.
Brother, one fears for any soul who dismisses what CWR has explained so clearly, & obstinately maintains that Catholic clergy can legitimately bless homosexuals.
Ever aspiring to be true to King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
Deacon Dom allow me a parrhesia that suspends for the few minutes your caption dismembered.
Your quoted CCC paragraphs have to do with definitive act but all we see is contrarian admitted to be so by Popesplainers like one James.
All are misled including yourself for THAT is nowhere near the truth of the matter.
What we are being given now in explanations is already acted out in the 20th Century. And already condemned back then. It can not be innovation or development. It is but a lie which those involved have to confess as their sin and also for trying to proclaim it as faith; and then renounce by true acts.
It’s why everything is so heady and publicized but that is not how they repent of it.
Elias: I invite you to completely and fully read and understand Fiducia Supplicans, and the cited passages from Sacred Scriptures and the CCC.
Dear Deacon Dom, stop obscuring & explain exactly your position in light of the three sections of this thorough, Fiducia Supplicans-informed, CWR article (which you seem not to have read or, at least, not understood).
Dr. Rice: Again: Have you read and understood Fiducia Supplicans?
Deacon Dom, one image that comes to mind is the amphisbaena. But I have a better image for what is represented: Satan. Lucifer if you prefer.
This is Satan on the other side of the Redemption showing us the different powers in his countenance. In the original temptation of the first parents, we got modest glimpses of it. In the Temptations of the Desert we got all the features on their best composition. Now we are presented with aspects prismatically enhanced to conceal.
Three faces of Satan; it’s no wonder the last presentations are dramatic, exaggerated and fantastic. O what a visage!
Pope Francis has been saying not to dialogue with the devil!
Desperation has set in with flamboyance because, well, they are devils after all! but also Our Lady Redemptrix will crush his head and time is limited.
“On the one hand, the document denies that such a non-ritualized or informal blessing gives any legitimacy to homosexual unions. On the other hand, it provides the foundation for precisely such legitimation by treating the union as something that qualifies for a blessing.”
The statement is merely argumentative. Prior to 2021, and for the first two millennia of church history, the church never regulated blessings such as “May Almighty God bless you, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
If I am wrong, please let me know. I am curious if this issue has ever come up in the history of the Church. My intuition says, probably not, since if it had been, by now someone would have cited it.
“Coming away from a close reading of FS, one wonders many things. Where is the hope of eternal gain?”
In the Sacraments of the Church.
“Where is the fear of eternal loss?”
Reconciliation with God through the Sacraments of the Church.
“Where is the call to perfection?”
Through the baptismal call to holiness.
“Where is the crucifixion of the flesh with its passions and desires?”
Through the imitation of the lies of the saints.
“Where is the contempt for this age?”
In scripture.
“Can you imagine the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 5, who was outraged by the Corinthian toleration of an incestuous relationship, permitting the believers at Corinth to give a blessing for all that is good in that very same relationship between the Christian man and his stepmother? I can’t, because it is historically impossible. Nobody with even a bare minimum of theological and ethical acumen could possibly argue otherwise.”
If a blessing is a source of actual grace, including for those in mortal sin, what is your point?
Our Lady of Fatima said to look for an enlightenment of conscience. FS is not that; stands aside from that; fails in it; and can not unfold to it.
She said everyone will be visited with the favour. It is certain to happen between now and the end whether as in a continuum or in a special duration.
From the floating of Fr. James Martin’s book (2017, link below) to Fiducia Supplicans (2023)…A case study in clericalist mud-wrestling, all to the point that “time is greater than space” (Evangelii Gaudium, 2013).
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/09/16/on-fr-james-martins-book-and-canonical-approval/
Dr. Rice you prove to be a very good fight worthy of better appreciation.
Thank you, dear Elias Galy.
True Catholic Servants of Jesus Christ are not commanded to win but to witness.
As you know, we sacrifice our every resource to call heretics back to Truth & Life.
The subtle, serpent factor poisoning those clergy who promote church blessing of homosexuals is statistically revealed in the sickeningly high proportion of Catholic clergy whose minds are corrupted by pornography, many of whom are active homosexuals. That’s the main foundation of clergy criminal child sexual molestation and of clergy abuse of vulnerable adults (e.g. using the confessional to groom, dominate, & hook-up with fragile souls).
Clergy (and lay) who are so immured in perversion & mortal sin are very obstinate and strongly resist all our efforts to reach them with sound New Testament doctrine and with the godly counsel of Catholic Saints & Elders. They have been mastered by the father of lies, who does not readily release his slaves.
In energetically witnessing the Gospel truth to deacons, priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, & even the pope of the day, we realistically understand that it’ll need a miracle of the order of changing-water-into-wine to get them to abjure their lives of habitual mortal sin.
Consequently, the sermons & teachings we get from such reprobates are very patchy. Aspects of The Gospel of Jesus Christ are used as camouflage but their true state is revealed by extraordinarily heretical statements.
A classic example is a claim that: “Jesus Christ came to save the world!” based on an erroneous exegesis of John 3:16. The verse actually says that: “This is the way that God loved the world: by giving us His Son, so those who believe in Him have access to eternal Life.” Elsewhere, Jesus teaches that those who truly believe in Him are those who faithfully & lovingly obey His commands.
Of course, for clergy sold-out to sin, the eisegesis: ‘being saved with the world’ (contrary to: John 17:14; 1 Corinthians 11:32; etc.) excuses them from any need to be obedient to Christ or His Holy Spirit-anointed Apostolic witness in The New Testament.
The spiritual situation of many Catholic clergy today is really hopeless, yet, like our Master Jesus Christ, let’s never give up witnessing The Gospel Truth to them & persevering in prayer for their repentance and salvation.
Always seeking to follow The Lamb; love & blessings from marty
I appreciate the clarity the three learned writers bring to this issue. One element is missing, and this does not change the contribution these learned writers offer: in all this discussion, we (the Church, the body of Christ) seem to have forgotten that men and women with same-sex attraction are our brothers and sisters and who sit amongst us in worship. The tone of these responses vilify our LGBT brothers and sisters – – – some of whom seek to live out our Church’s sexual ethics. Once again, we failed to extend our hand of friendship and love to our brothers and sisters who journey on the road of Redemption.
Dear Stephen Lawrence, it would be a sad day indeed if what you have written were actually true: “. . we (the Church, the body of Christ) seem to have forgotten that men and women with same-sex attraction are our brothers and sisters . .”
First: we who today belong to Catholic parishes & associations are but a miniscule PROVISIONAL part. By far the greatest part of The Church ABSOLUTE (The Body of Christ) is constituted of our Most Blessed Mother Mary, the 12 Apostles of Jesus Christ, and billions of Saints & Martyrs who have, over the last 2,000 years, faithfully loved & obeyed God’s Commandments, and are already in Glory.
This enormous part of The Church Absolute, this ‘great Cloud of Faithful Witnesses’ intercedes for the tiny part of The Church Provisional that’s currently active in this world. Our Catholic Bibles & the Catechism of the Catholic Church assure us that the way for us to become part of The Church Absolute in Glory is for us of The Church Provisional to lovingly obey God’s Commandments and to faithfully witness to the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ & His Holy Spirit-anointed Apostles.
The saints have shown us that there are two parts to being faithful to the Gospel:
1. to know what sin is, to avoid sin, to repent of sin, & to witness against sin;
2. to love God and to love all people (even our enemies) as we are loved by Christ.
For example, I love and am friendly towards many among my colleagues and acquaintances who I know are in sexual sin, such as fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. That does not mean I do not take every possible feasible opening they provide to nudge them towards the obedience of faith.
May we who profess Jesus Christ as Our LORD, never forget to follow Him in praying and living: “YOUR WILL BE DONE FATHER, NOT MINE”.
It is oxymoronic for anyone to claim to be a Christ-disobeying Catholic! Catholicism is all about being obedient to King Jesus Christ.
Many Catholic parishes around the world have prayer groups & other ministries that wonderfully ‘extend the hand of friendship’ in helping those who are tempted (not only by sexual sins & perversions but by lying, violence, theft, and many other failures) so they can find the strength to live by God’s will not their own will. This is at the heart of truly finding Redemption in Jesus Christ, for there is no other.
It is 29th December here in Australia and at Mass today the first reading was from 1 John 2 – “We can be sure that we know Jesus only by keeping His commandments. Anyone who says: ‘I know Him and does not keep His commandments is a liar, refusing to admit the truth.'”
1 John 2 continues: “We can be sure that we are in God only when the one who claims to be living in Him is living the same kind of life as Christ lived.”
With that as the agreed common goal among us Catholics, there’s obviously no space for a claim that active homosexuality is not a sin, to be repented of and overcome.
Hoping, dear Stephen, this brief effort encourages you that there is much more loving goodness at work in The Church, in partnership with righteousness, than you thought.
Always seeking to know, love, & obey King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
From the article above: “Faithful Catholics are again forsaken and abused. The handful of outraged priests are deemed hateful, unpastoral, rigid, and dangerous. Liberals no longer claim a monopoly on those smears that extend back to the 1960s. The liberals now have allies from across the spectrum. Bishops and priests who refuse to acknowledge the ‘studied ambiguity’ of the document and insist it carries ‘no doctrinal changes’ will look at outraged priests with suspicion because they refuse to conform to their delusions. The mainstream press sees through the studied ambiguities and recognizes the reality that many bishops and priests refuse to see.
“The document is a genius Machiavellian move because it divides faithful priests and bishops. It is even more sinister because the Vatican released it the week before Christmas, sabotaging Catholic focus on the Birth of Jesus. The document brilliantly weaponizes platitudes, cruelly taking advantage of the goodwill of priests and bishops.”