The document Fiducia supplicans (FS) of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) claims that priests may, in certain circumstances, give blessings to “couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples” (Víctor Manuel Cardinal Fernández, “Presentation”; FS 31). The qualifying circumstances include the following factors: scandal must be avoided (FS 30, 39), the blessing is to be informal and not performed in a liturgical setting (FS 9-11, 23-24, 31-39), and the blessing must neither lead to confusion (FS 5) nor signal a change in the Church’s moral teaching (Fernández, “Presentation,”; FS 3, 4).
Could there be any scenarios in which all these qualifying circumstances are realized? Leaving this difficulty aside here, I argue that it would always be wrong to give a blessing to such couples, unless perhaps, in addition to the above-mentioned circumstances, the couple is heterosexual, there are dependent children of the couple, and the man and woman promise to live as brother and sister until their situation is regularized.
The nature of blessings
FS includes a helpful set of reflections on the various kinds and parts of blessings (a descending gift from God, an ascending prayer of praise or thanksgiving to God, and an extending of blessing towards another). In this essay, I focus on the descending aspect. A blessing is chiefly (as a descending reality) a gift of divine assistance in the present for the ultimate good of the recipient. As such, a blessing is a means to an end. The ultimate end of any blessing is of course eternal salvation, but the proximate end is some present good suitable for the journey to heaven. A blessing targets the recipient either simply as a person—called to be a son or daughter of God—or according to some special aspect, activity, or purpose in life. If the blessing targets a special activity, it gives wings, so to speak, to the person in that activity, approving it and assisting it.
God loves us sinners and thus wills our eternal salvation. Since his blessing is an assistance to that end, he extends his blessing to benefit, not to hinder, the recipient. Morally good activity is good for us, but morally evil activity is destructive of us. So, God blesses us in or for our good actions but never blesses us in or for our evil actions. God never aids and abets morally evil activity. Were he to do so, he would predestine (prepare) the sinner for misery and damnation, because the end of sin is death (Rom 6:21). But God loves everything that he has made (Wis 11:24).
Those who petition God for a blessing should observe the wisdom of divine love. To petition a blessing upon someone for some special purpose or activity is to cooperate formally with that person in that purpose or activity. So, those who petition have an obligation to refuse a blessing to someone asking for a blessing under a special aspect or activity or purpose which is patently evil. In any case, God is not a clericalist and would not bless the evil aspect or activity. Thus, there is a tacit obligation to consider what is being asked and render a reasonable judgment, as we can see with the following examples. If a member of the KKK asked for a blessing upon his activity as part of the clan, the priest would be obliged to refuse.
A group of two or more sometimes asks for and receives a blessing. What is being blessed in these cases? The group’s existence is grounded in that of the individuals, not as individuals but as they are ordered together. The group has cohesion precisely in virtue of its defining activity and end. So, a blessing comes down upon the individuals as members of the group. When two or more persons as a group present themselves for a blessing, they highlight the unity, activity, and end of their group as the precise aspect under which the blessing is to be conferred. Thus, the members are asking for a blessing upon the chief or defining act of their group. If that chief action is good, a blessing is good. If that chief action is evil, to bless the group is to cooperate formally in the evil. God does not approve and assist evil activity; so, he would never bless any group whose defining activity or end is evil, much less gravely evil.
How Fiducia supplicans views couples and blessings
On the basis of the foregoing principles, we can evaluate the document FS. In its climactic paragraph, it states, “Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex” (FS 31). Clearly, FS is here treating persons as partners. Thus, it is treating them under a special aspect, namely, as being partners in various kinds of non-marital sexual relationship: unmarried, adulterous, and homosexual. By “sexual relationship” I mean sexually active. When the document presents, as potential recipients of blessings, persons as partners in the aforesaid relationships, it is necessarily—despite any well-intentioned aims or wishful thinking to the contrary—targeting as an aspect of the object of blessing the defining or integral activity of these relationships. That defining or integral activity involves the use of the sexual faculties.
But, according to the perennial and infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium, the use of the sexual faculties in any of these relationships in any non-marital relationship is intrinsically and gravely evil. (FS understates this teaching as follows: only in a valid, heterosexual marriage do sexual relations “find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning” (FS 4). Since the document treats the partners precisely under the aspect of the relationship, whose defining activity is intrinsically and gravely evil, it includes in the scope of the blessing an object that may not be blessed.
The problem is worse. The persons in these relationships have committed themselves to gravely sinful ways of life. They do not merely succumb to a temptation in a moment, even though that would be gravely evil also. Rather, they embrace a sinful way of life. Such a state of life involves habitual refusal to repent, a state of impenitence. In this state, the sinner stands opposed to the fruition of divine grace in his soul. Hardened, he is less likely to repent. To affirm and assist the sinner in this very state is thus to lead him away from the divine mercy, and to bless such relationships is to affirm and assist sinners in this very state.
An impenitent sinner may for a time retain the divine faith. However, he cannot long maintain the cognitive dissonance. To embrace a sinful state of life is to embark on a trajectory that culminates in the attempt to falsify the moral truth. The sinner does not simply turn his mind away from the moral truth in order to indulge here-and-now in the vice; rather, he proceeds to convince himself that this kind of activity is not intrinsically evil. We have seen the trajectory of this march towards deception with the acceptance of no-fault divorce and gay “marriage.” Today, we see the push to criminalize those who tell the truth about the sex and gender. Truth opposes the lie, while proponents of the lie bear real, if implicit, malice towards those who preach and witness to the truth (Wis 2:12, 19f). Such a state of deception and hardness, including hatred of the true and the good and the beautiful, anticipates final damnation.
One could raise various objections to my thesis. First, I have failed to countenance FS’s distinction between a liturgical blessing and a spontaneous, non-ritualized blessing. Let us peruse the application of this distinction. A key passage reads, “The Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice” FS 11). This is a puzzling statement. Does it mean that the Church does have the power to impart a non-liturgical blessing even under such circumstances? One would hardly think so. But since not, how is the distinction salient?
Reasonably, FS claims that a non-liturgical blessing involves “a realm of greater spontaneity and freedom” (FS 12). But what is the scope of this freedom? Another crucial passage reads, “From a strictly liturgical point of view, a blessing requires that what is blessed be conformed to God’s will, as expressed in the teachings of the Church” (FS 9?). Does this mean that a non-liturgical blessing can be given to an object that is not conformed to God’s will? And what is it that can deviate from God’s will? Strictly speaking, only freely acting persons (or their free actions) can deviate from God’s will. So, can sinners be blessed? As persons, yes, we can; God blesses us sinners, provided we desire to be conformed to his will.
But does God bless us as sinners, as we intend to sin? No, for he does not approve and cooperate with evil. God blesses no one under the aspect of deviation from the divine will. He never blesses moral evil in any circumstance. So, FS’s appeal to an informal, non-ritualized, extra-liturgical blessing is beside the point.
Second, what about the “other-centered” character of these relationships? Can we not bracket the acts of fornication or adultery or sodomy, put these to the side, and consider the various other activities in the day-to-day lives of those in such relationships? For example, can we not consider how the partners comport themselves at the dinner table? Is there not a rich tapestry of action that we can affirm and bless? If so, can we not find some matter in some such couple by which we could non-liturgically bless that particular couple as a couple (FS 31)? Would not such a blessing be for the partners’ good and lead to their repentance from fornication, adultery, or sodomy (FS 40)?
The nature of morally good acts
To tackle this question, we must first consider whether any of the acts of the partners can be morally good. Second, if some acts of the partners can be good, let us consider whether the relationship as a whole can be blessed in light of these possible acts. Can any of the acts of these partners be morally good?
By “morally good act,” I mean an act that is good at least on the natural level. A human act, an act freely chosen, is either morally good or morally evil. An act can be morally good even though not supernatural, i.e., even though not an act of charity. Someone who is not in the state of grace can do morally good acts; not all acts of one in the state of sin are themselves sinful or morally evil. The Nazi doctor can tuck his children into bed at night. This act is not evil, although his work as a Nazi doctor is. However, all acts that are ordered to an evil end participate in the sinful nature of the end. The Nazi doctor cleaning his death equipment or writing down a list of innocents whom to persecute or kill is not doing morally good acts even on the natural level.
Now, some acts intrinsically bear an order to a certain end. Acts such as foreplay are of their essence ordered to the sexual act. If for persons engaging in foreplay the sexual act is fornication, adultery, or sodomy, then the foreplay itself participates in the sinful character of the end. Other acts are naturally orderable to the sexual act, such as a basic kiss and similar signs of affection and romantic tenderness. When these acts naturally orderable to the sexual act are expressed in a relationship whose defining act is the sexual act, they are almost invariably inflected with respect to the habitual character of the relationship. Thus, one cannot reasonably deny that they are almost always concretely ordered to the relationship as a sexual relationship. And all acts ordered to the relationship as sexual participate in the sinful character of the relationship. It is simply delusional to think that an adulterer’s running his hands through his mistress’s hair, buying her flowers or diamonds, or stroking her arms are not acts ordered to the relationship as sexual. It is delusional to think that such touches are like the morally good acts of massage therapy or that such gifts are like those given by morally upright people courting or validly married spouses.
However, there are other acts which, while capable of being ordered to the relationship as sexual, are conceivably willed in morally good ways. One might consider, for example, how well they tend the garden, how nicely the house is decorated, their vigorous discussion of the real antagonist in The Illiad, hiking in the mountains, quality work in the workplace, care in cooking, etc. One can even consider heroic acts. If one of the partners takes the other to the hospital or takes physical care of the other during a major illness, these are morally good acts on the natural level, provided they are not ordered to the relationship as sexual. Given the habitual state of impenitence of these partners, however, the presumption would be that none of these acts is an act of charity unless there has been a real act of repentance.
Does the existence of morally good acts in the context of a sinful relationship give sufficient grounds to bless the relationship? It does not. Once again, to bless the relationship is to bless the precise aspect under which the persons are partners in the relationship. That aspect necessarily includes the sexual act, which in these cases is gravely evil. Thus, although there are good elements in the lives of those living habitually and impenitently in an objectively sinful state, these elements do not warrant a blessing on the sinful relationship itself. In fact, the foregoing analysis showed that only acts not ordered to the relationship as sexual can be good.
Thus, these good elements are precisely distinguished from the sinful relationship itself. They are, as such, the stuff of a possibly virtuous relationship between the members of the couple, provided that each of them repents of the sin that is integral to the very character of the relationship as sexual. Thus, there are no grounds to bless any irregular or same-sex relationship. Pretending that there are grounds—by abstracting these conceivably separable elements and considering them in isolation as good things—is to miss the forest for the trees. But the forest, the objectively gravely evil way of life these partners embrace, is an obstacle to their eternal salvation. Repenting from the sin definitive of this situation remains the most urgent act for them.
Disordered acts and “good elements”
Unfortunately, the western culture and even members of the hierarchy are examining the matter chiefly with the eyes of emotional sensitivity rooted in the flesh. They judge that such relationships are good, if (perhaps) less than fully mature. The Swiss episcopal conference has posted a picture of two men gazing at each other in the eyes romantically, poised for a kiss. The picture does not highlight the sinful nature of the gay lifestyle but brazenly, though vainly, attempts to isolate the “romantic” precursors to sodomy and portray them in a good light.
The truth is otherwise. The act integral to and definitive of a same-sex relationship is sodomy, an unnatural and gravely evil sin, to which Pope St. Pius V referred as “that horrible crime, for which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation” (Pius V, Horrendum illud scelus). The acts naturally orderable to sodomy—such as those suggested in the Swiss episcopal conference picture—have a gravely evil and disordered act as their natural end. Thus, these acts are themselves disordered. It is delusion to think that the “romantic” tenderness of two men or two women is a good thing. To the contrary, it is an affectivity discolored by the failure to embody the heterosexual nature of genuine sexual affection.
Since God loves those struggling with homosexual tendencies, he does not aid and abet them in their sins, neither in the climactic act nor in the acts ordered to it or inflected with reference to it. Thus, he does not bless sodomy or relationships defined by sodomy. God does bless sinners; he blesses the individuals who are in same-sex relationships. What is the good and the purpose of such blessings? The proximate end is some temporal good as orderable to the end of eternal life. Since sodomy is opposed to the moral good and eternal life, true divine blessings have an intrinsic tendency to bring about repentance from the sin of sodomy, the amendment of life, and perseverance unto glory.
By implication, the blessings have an intrinsic tendency to upend the entire character of the relationship as sexual and all the acts ordered to it. It is misleading to describe such an upending and totally reconfiguring act as “maturation,” as FS implicitly does (FS 31). Indeed, drug addicts do well to distance themselves from people, places, and things associated with their addiction. Sexual relationships which cannot possibly be morally good (same-sex relationships) or cannot in the foreseeable circumstances be good (adulterous relationships) call for such distancing.
Were God to bless two persons as a same-sex couple, he would approve and further the act integral to and definitive of a same-sex relationship. He would obstruct the path of the partners to genuine happiness and salvation. Were a priest or deacon to beseech God’s blessing upon two persons as members of a same-sex relationship, he would be acting as though God called evil good (Is 5:20). He would deceive the couple and any witnesses present, making access to and the application of divine mercy that much more difficult.
To act as though a blessing could target the members as members but only insofar as their sinful relationship happens to have good elements in it, all the while wearing blinders with respect to the sin integral to the relationship as sexual, would be like trying to play Milton Bradley’s Operation with pliars too big for the task. What is called for is a blessing of individuals; we are all sinners, and if we ask for a blessing in good faith, a dedicated priest will not refuse us.
Marriage, “same-sex couples,” and “moral perfection”
Third, FS differentiates same-sex unions from sacramental marriage (FS 4-6). Does this help? Not sufficiently. As stated above, the only morally good use of the sexual faculty is one between the spouses in a valid natural or sacramental marriage. Both kinds of marriage, natural or sacramental, are by definition heterosexual. Both are morally good. Thus, it is not sacramentality itself that is alone off limits for those in same-sex relationships. It is any kind of sexual union.
Fourth, FS uses the phrase “same-sex couple,” not “same-sex union” (FS 2, 31, 38, 39, 41). This phrasing is peculiar and does not alleviate the problem. What does the phrase same-sex “couple” even mean? Would we say that two men in a virtuous friendship are a “same-sex couple”? Not in the least. “Same-sex couple” means two men or two women with sexual affection for each other who choose to express that sexual affection in a completed way as an act integral to their steady commitment to each another. This is precisely what we mean when we speak of a “same-sex union.” It could be likened to the distinction between the “organized mafia” and the same group considered as a “protection syndicate.” Suppose the “protection syndicate” asked for a blessing because the restaurant in which it operates is clean and serves good food, because the members have fraternity, because shops are protected from other crime, because they donate to Mother Church, etc. Would the Church refuse to offer a liturgical blessing to the group as “organized mafia” but permit the group a non-liturgical blessing as “protection syndicate” in light of these good elements in the life of the mob? Absurd. So, too, the suggested distinction between union and couple is artificial; it is another red herring.
Fifth, what about FS’s reassurance that those seeking an extra-liturgical blessing “should not be required to have prior moral perfection” (FS 25)? This passage is also misleading. The Church does not require moral perfection of anyone seeking a liturgical blessing nor of anyone receiving the sacraments. What, then, the reassurance? We are told that we must “shy away from … narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying.” (FS 25).
What on earth is this passage about? Is the implication that it is narcissistic to uphold the Church’s own moral teaching and sacramental practice that only Catholics in the state of grace may receive the Holy Eucharist? What living priest or bishop conducts public moral inquiries into private acts? Just who is “inspecting and verifying” instead of opening the door to grace? Holy Mother Church withholds the sacraments from public sinners until they cooperate with divine grace and rectify their situation. Such discipline is for the good of the sinner and of the Mystical Body. The Church instructs anyone conscious of mortal sin not to receive the Eucharist before obtaining sacramental absolution. Thereby, the door of divine mercy is kept open. Renegades, wittingly or unwittingly, obscure the evil of moral abominations from the eyes of the sinner himself and of the public at large and thus close the door of divine mercy upon those most in need of it and by such scandals cause others to question their faith.
Conclusion
FS portends to be a scandal in various ways. Same-sex couples and couples in irregular situations will feel affirmed in the sinful act integral to their relationships. They will be tempted to gloss over the few references to traditional doctrine and unchanging moral teaching because they are receiving a blessing as members of a sinfully sexual relationship. Homosexuals will be tempted to ignore that the remote implication in some of these traditional phrases is that the goal of such blessings is repentance from sodomy and a complete reorientation of the very relationship (FS 31, 40), namely, the end of a ‘same-sex’ relationship and the beginning of a legitimate friendship unsullied by disordered abuse, however consensual. Those living in adultery or fornication will fare similarly, mutatis mutandis.
As a result, living in public sin, they are likely to be emboldened. Thus mistaken, they will be distanced from the very mercy of God, which calls them to and equips them for repentance and real happiness. Further, their friends and loved ones, considering them with a tenderness rooted in the flesh rather than in right reason, much less spiritual prudence, will fall prey to erroneous assessments and thus mistakenly think that their efforts to assist these couples are acts of charity.
It is obvious that this document has already caused the very scandal that it instructs priests and deacons to avoid, namely, the misconception that the Catholic Church is changing her perennial moral teaching and that sodomy is now acceptable. Can we hope to hear the voice of prophets crying in the wilderness that fornication, adultery, and sodomy are gravely evil? Will the pastors of the Church remind the faithful about these universal moral truths? Will they clearly instruct couples in these problematic situations? Will they take care to avoid scandal? Or, rather, will hopes build in same-sex and other couples that one day the Church will welcome the very act that is integral to the relationship as sexual? I hope for brighter days that see the repeal of this tragic document and the clear, unambiguous proclamation of the truth. True accompaniment requires such proclamation, since accompaniment—as the help of companions along the pilgrim journey—needs a genuine and agreed upon goal: one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God (Eph 4:5f).
No doubt there are faithful priests who will attempt to apply FS in a manner that adheres to the moral teaching and sacramental practice of the Church. They will preface any such unofficial blessing with an unambiguous, substantive proclamation of the truth. Would any couples in the aforesaid situations wish to hear all this without the compunction and tears that befit the sacrament of reconciliation?
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.
Fernandez theologizes that it is possible to bless one layer of acouple, or union or whatever, without at the same time blessing the whole onion…
Only the friendship layer–under the layered conditions that the novelty blessing be targeted, and informal, and spontaneous, and non-liturgical, and free of scandal, and free of confusion. Supposing, too, that if the priest squints hard enough, then he, too, can act in some layered way, spontaneously and informally (!) and setting aside the fact that himself remains an ordained and unlayered priest, that is, ecclesial in his actions.
Snort. This makes no more sense than if bishops were to posture “primarily as facilitators” to “aggregate, compile and synthesize” indifferently the layering of all matters, both ecclesial and otherwise, to be aired (and erred?) in the town-hall diocesan synods…
Wait, what?
Finally, after two thousand years, Sfiducia Supplicans proclaims pastoral heresy on a piece of paper for same-sex couples! Every previous Pope, Saint and Sacred Writer anre exposed as unmerciful rigorists!
Thanks be to Pope Francis and Cardinal 💋 for calling God out for His Perfection.
Who is God to judge?
LOL!
Brilliant comment, dear Fool! A tour de force!
I do so enjoy seeing Tucho and Bergoglio so roundly and rollickingly and deservedly mocked!
And what’s more, Sfiducia Supplicans has lead to the miraculous healing of about a dozen Bishops who were suffering from mutism.
True & let’s hope it’s infectious . . !
On a positive note, with Sfiducia Supplicans, at least there has been one clear development of doctrine:
We now know that papal infallibility does not protect against the promulgation of pastoral heresies.
True but EVER SO DISAPPOINTING . . !
By refusing to accommodate an occasion of sin, Ipso facto, the eclipse of The True Church will be removed, as the counterfeit church of apostasy is no longer able to block The Light Of Perfect Love That Shines In The Darkness, Jesus The Christ.
Error has no rights, although it can often serve to help illuminate that which is true.
Jesus Christ Is Our Lord And Savior; the darkness cannot overcome Him. The election of a schismatic “cardinal” to The Papacy, because he is a contradiction, has exposed A Great Apostasy.
You can only have A Great Apostasy from The True Church Of Christ, Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church.
“It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque); It Is “Through Christ, With Christ, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), that Holy Mother Church, outside of which there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque) exists.
“Blessed are those who are Called to The Wedding Supper Of The Lamb.”
Brilliant Article, a tour de force
Agreed
I must say, as a Catholic layman worried about the state of the Church, I am deeply disappointed at this article, if I am to speak boldly in a spirit of parrhesia. To start, this article is indistinguishable from a critique of any other theological paper–and that is precisely its biggest flaw. Fiducia Supplicans is not a mere academic article that scholars are free to criticize and dissect as they like, it is a document of the ordinary magisterium of Jesus Christ, of which it is true to say regarding its moral obligation to assent, “He who hears you hears me; he who rejects you rejects me.” (See Pius XII, Humani Generis Paragraph 20). Furthermore, the great and holy Pope St. Pius X famously remarked, “we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.” (Saint Pius X
Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union
November 18, 1912). As Vatican 1 moreover teachers, the Pope is the Father and Teacher of All Christian People, and as such, we are to adhere to his teachings with docility and religious submission of intellect and will, of which frankly it is hard to assert that this article gave. It is strange times we live in when teachers of the theology of Christ are trying to correct the Teacher that Christ appointed over us rather than allowing themselves to be guided by him with an outlook of faith and trust that the Rock will never be crushed by the gates of hell.
Now, onto the merits of the article. First, the author already concedes the orthodoxy of Fiducia Supplicans, albeit perhaps unintentionally. He writes: “So, can sinners be blessed? As persons, yes, we can; God blesses us sinners, provided we desire to be conformed to his will.” As Fiducia Supplicans stresses repeatedly, that is all what this blessing is doing–blessing sinners in need of God’s help! FS explictly says of this type of blessing: “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.” (FS 40).
So when the author claims “Were God to bless two persons as a same-sex couple, he would approve and further the act integral to and definitive of a same-sex relationship,” I’m sorry to say, this interpretation is simply contradicted by the text of FS itself and cannot be valid. I’m also puzzled why there was no explicit mention of FS’s clear declaration that it is not blessing the same-sex union in paragraph 5: “the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.” To the author’s credit, he does note that FS avoids the term blessing of same sex unions but instead uses the word “couple,” but he does not engage sufficiently with the distinction between couple and union as even other critics of the document has.
The closest the author came, in my opinion, to addressing this crucial distinction in FS is his comment: “To act as though a blessing could target the members as members but only insofar as their sinful relationship happens to have good elements in it, all the while wearing blinders with respect to the sin integral to the relationship as sexual,”
But this is precisely missing the point. A blessing under the guideliness of FS is to bless the members of a same-sex couple simply as persons, entirely regardless of their sinful relationship. Anyone can receive a personal blessing even if they are in a sinful relationship, and this same principle applies to two persons who are in a sinful same-sex romantic relationship. The author has the impression that the blessing is ordered to blessing at least some aspect of the relationship, despite Fiducia Supplicans’ clear statements otherwise. Of course a same sex couple has the attribute per accidens of being in a sinful relationship, but per se they are children of God that need God’s blessing to live a better life in accord with the Gospel. A blessing can be imparted upon any persons for who they are per se, without intending to bless any sin of theirs or any sinful relationships per accidens that adhere to the persons involved. This is the powerful message of Fiducia Supplicans.
To my dear brother Harold P (and all others, as well) I would strongly recommend he read Archbishop Vigano and Archbishop Chaput’s thunderous response to the Vatican about FP. Both of their spirited and high critical refutation to this garbage is very enlightening and encouraging. And in that regard, I am quite surprised to not see their respective articles in CWR.
Brief & well said, dear JCallas: a good reply to dear ‘Harald P’ et al., who blithely set aside almost 2,000 years of faithfulness in the Catholic Church.
Will they accept correction by established Catholic facts & logic or are they blinded by the lure of forging a sin-blessing Catholicism, in the futile hope of winning approval of a world that is entirely anti-pathetic towards our wonderful King, Jesus Christ?
From Pope Francis to the least of us laity, we belong to Catholic parishes & associations that are but a miniscule PROVISIONAL entity. By far the greatest part of The Body of Christ (the Church ABSOLUTE) 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.
The Church Absolute, this enormous ‘great Cloud of Faithful Witnesses’, intercedes for our tiny part, The Church Provisional, currently active in this world. Our Catholic Missal, Bible, & Catechism of the Catholic Church assure us that the way to become part of The Church Absolute in Glory is for us of The Church Provisional to lovingly obey God’s Commandments & faithfully, evangelically 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 ever friendly towards many among my colleagues and acquaintances who I know are in mortal sexual sin (fornication, adultery, homosexuality & other perversions, pornography, etc.). I still seek every 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: “FATHER, YOUR WILL BE DONE NOT MINE”.
It’s scandalously preposterous for hierarchs to set themselves up as Christ-disobeying Catholics! Catholicism is all about being obedient to King Jesus Christ.
Many Catholic parishes around the world have prayer groups & other ministries, wonderful success in helping those who are tempted (not only by sexual sins & perversions but by lying, violence, theft, and many other failures) so those lost in sin can find strength to live by God’s will not their own will.
Obedience to God is the heart of Catholic Redemption in Jesus Christ. Our pope & his curious Curia are lying by suggesting disobedience to God can be normalized. They are starting a new religion that is against the instructions of Jesus & His Holy Spirit-anointed Apostles. The whole Host of Heaven is aghast. Do they care?
On 29th December here in Australia 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 original & tradition-affirmed common goal among true Catholics, there’s obviously no space for a claim that active homosexuality is not a sin, to be repented of and overcome.
Any form of Catholic blessing, no matter how it is casuistically equivocated by the powers in Rome, will result in many godly celibates engaging in illicit sexual relations, to the detriment of their eternal souls. Woe to the pope of our day!
As Saint Paul warns: “. . if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one you have already heard, let him be condemned.” (see Galatians 1:8-10).
Always seeking to know, love, & obey King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
Harold P., thank you! Your comments are a true needle in the haystack.
Thank you Collin for your support. Let us pray for our Catholic brethren on this issue and let’s maintain serene confidence that in the end, the truth will ultimately prevail.
Happy New Year!
It already has!
Prevailed that is…
If truth is to prevail Fiducia Supplicans must be rescinded.
Sinners have always been able to seek blessings, when done in the spirit of repentance, penance, and acknowledgement of a desire to seek greater union with the will of God. If I am to speak boldly in a spirit of parrhesia, your bit of sophistry misses the major points. When a “couple” seeks a blessing, both members should be in accord with the will of God. A gay couple, by their very existence, are not seeking greater union with God’s will. Their relationship is a conscious choice to be in opposition to God’s will.
Let us cease with the rainbows and unicorns and thinking that a gay relationship is really just about “love”. Its nucleus is carnal desire and nothing more. The Lord’s command was to go and sin no more. There is no method to accept the depravity of an actively gay relationship.
Thank you for your strong but respectful criticism of my comment, Mr. Barnes.
You say that both members of a couple should be in accord with the will of God. Would you place that same prerequisite on an individual receiving a blessing, say, in the communion line? If an abortionist or a pro-abortion politician came to a priest by himself and crossed his hands for a blessing, should the priest deny that person a blessing?
If the answer to this is yes, the priest should deny the abortionist a blessing, then we really disagree. If the answer is no, then I am unsure why we cannot apply the same logic to blessing of a couple. The blessing is not over their relationship or union and does intend to legitimize anything, just as a blessing over an individual abortionist, while the person is a grave sinner, does not intend to condone their sinful actions.
Happy New Year!
Harold:
#1. I disagree with this notion of people approaching the communion rail – but only to receive a blessing. Only those receiving communion should approach the altar. A blessing at communion time is not a consolation prize. If someone attends Mass and desires a blessing, he need only wait until the conclusion of Mass when everyone is given a blessing. I have heard many pastors and some bishops discourage people approaching the altar at communion time to receive a blessing. Their reasoning is sound: it confounds the liturgical importance of receiving Holy Comnunion. Even Catechumens are dismissed from Mass immediately after the Liturgy of the Word because they have not yet done what’s needed to participate in the Communion Rite.
#2. If someone is publicly known as an abortion provider, I think it would create scandal for a priest to give a public blessing. If that person came privately to a priest for a blessing, it would be an opportune time for the priest to provide spiritual counsel.
At my TLM parish, many parents bring all their (often many) small children to the altar rail. The priests of my FSSP parish do not bless the small children at the rail (and of course the children do not receive the Holy Eucharist). Those children who are able do cross their arms over their chest to indicate they are not able to receive.
It seems to me that being close to persons who do receive is blessing enough.
You are quite the sophist, skillfully avoiding all real issues and presenting false equivalencies. The gay couple is engaging in grave, mortal sin. They do this on a regular basis. They are proud of their sin, and want all the world to know they consider their sin to be “not sin” or even a good. The document LIES and pretends that these blessings are to be given so that they may “live in accord with the gospels” and OF COURSE, this couple has NO INTENTION at all of ceasing their grave and soul destroying sin. In fact, they plan on displaying their lifestyle in church, and encouraging everyone to accept grave sin. Notice the document realizes they have NO INTENTION at all of avoiding sin. They are in fact celebrating their sin, and they hope to spread acceptance of their sin. That is why James Martin went to the NYT and publicly “blessed” two men who had no intention at all of living up to “the gospels”. The document even prohibits the priest from inquiring whether they desire to live in accordance with “the gospels”. Because the document makes no sense.
1) “We are not blessing your sin, only your desire to live up to the gospels”
2) Even though you are not living according to the gospels, we will bless you anyway, so we really did not mean number 1) above.
3) And don’t even ask them if they want to live according to Catholic teaching, because they will give answers that would prohibit them from receiving a blessing, so don’t even ask
A pope whose teaching deviates from the Eternal Word of Jesus Christ and it’s distillate, which is the perennial teaching of the Universal Church, is not at all “magisterial”.
Pope Francis has, once again, only sown confusion, fomented division and – de facto – given “validation” to sinful behaviour.
Michael Barnes: brilliantly said and sans all the theological posturing. Thanks. Common sense will always win the day over wordsmithery.
Father, thank you for your reply comment to mine.
How do we know if a Pope is teaching against the Word of God? Are you aware, for example, of Feeneyites who say that Pius XII was against Sacred Tradition and Scripture for teaching the doctrine of baptism of desire? They used the same argument, I fear, that they rejected Pius XII’s magisterium and declared it invalid merely because they perceived it to contradict Tradition. But I know we both agree baptism of desire is traditional.
My overall point is that anyone can claim that the Pope contradicts Tradition, and that is how we end up with endless sects and divided Christian groups. Everyone thinks they have the true doctrine, but not everyone is in union with Rome. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church Sec. 882 says: “The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” When groups say they have a different doctrine than the Pope, that is how unity of the Church dissolves, I fear. This is why I must respectfully disagree with your comment.
I hope your priestly ministry is fruitful in this upcoming year.
More weak sophistry. You basically say “Whatever the pope says, is perfect and pure Catholic teaching”. No one may disobey it. But of course, this has never been the case and everyone realizes it.
FIRST: This declaration is not infallible. So there is always the possibility that the pope, in his worldly pronouncements, may get something wrong either intentionally or not intentionally. So the Catholic church has LONG recognized the fact that Popes may speak error at times, which usually is corrected. The only time a pope’s word is infallible is when he speaks in a certain defined manner, which he does not do here.
SECOND, those sections you quote have to do with Popes who make their declarations that are in accord with Catholic teaching. This declaration is quite clearly trying to avoid and sidestep Catholic teaching, and to IGNORE the bible and centuries of Catholic teaching. So your contention that the Pope is always without error, and may INVENT any new teaching that he desires, and we all must follow it with no questions asked is CLEARLY wrong. We have never had a pope teach heresy before, so we are on new ground. Now, Francis seems to want to teach heresy very much, but so far he has barely avoided stepping over that line. If they Pope were to say “Jesus is not divine” would we all have to do what he says? Of course not. You can trot out all the quotes you want, and misuse them by essentially taking them out of context. The Pope cannot ignore Catholic teaching. Period. He must follow Catholic teaching in all things, or his pronouncements must be ignored by the faithful. Thankfully, we have had thoroughly CATHOLIC popes until now, none of whom would have dreamed of IGNORING the bible or bending to evil worldly desires. Now we do have a rancid pope with many strange, devious, and ignorant ideas. Quite clearly, we need to suffer under him until the papacy is restored to a faithful man
Harold P. is promoting ultramontanism, pure and simple. We must assent because the Pope wrote it (or at least allowed his name to be associated with it). There is no attempt to square the tendentious document with the settled magisterial teaching it contradicts. It is the argument of a partisan fool.
Harold, if a Pope breaks with all of his predecessors, it’s hard to see that he’s upholding tradition, wouldn’t you say?
Hello Glenn,
Thank you for your comment. It is impossible, a priori, as a matter of faith, for a pope to break gravely with the Tradition of his predecessors in his official magisterium. The Pope has the gift of never-failing faith, see Vatican 1, Pastor Aeternus, Ch.4, no.7.
Lastly, Pope Leo XIII already predicted this objection and answered it in his letter Epistola Tua, excerpted below. He actually condemns the act of rejecting a current Pontiff because one personally believes he is contradicting past Pontiffs. See below:
“Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.”
If a theological opinion of ourselves is shown to contradict Tradition, we must examine and retrace our steps, for human reason can always be wrong, but not the faith. God Bless, and Happy Feast of the Epiphany!
No, we don’t bless people who intend to keep sinning and have no desire to stop sinning. An abortion doctor asking for a blessing to continue killing babies would not be blessed. Nor would a non-chaste same sex couple.
You speak common sense. Thanks. Happy New Year.
Hello Chris,
Thanks for your respectful criticism of my post. I might add, surely we bless sinners, even notorious ones, every day at Mass without asking whether they are grave sinners. If an abortion doctor comes in the communion line, with his hands crossed for a blessing, the priest will bless him. I have never heard of a priest refuse to bless even a public or famous abortion doctor (or other public sinners) at communion line. Same principle applies here for same-sex couples. You can always give a spontaneous blessing to a sinner, no matter how grave a sinner they are.
I wish you a Happy New Year!
Dear ‘Harold P’: of course, anyone who joins the Holy Communion line can get a blessing. But this priestly blessing is bestowed on that individual personally, IT IS NOT a blessing on a same-sex couple living in pseudo-marital union!
Of course, a priest is unable to tell by simple observation who is in mortal sin (such as abortionists, active homosexuals, etc.). Godly priests no doubt pray an individual blessing that encompasses all possibilities, including the possibility of person being in need of sincere confession & deep repentance.
I think dear Chris is on the right line here.
Let’s always hear & lovingly obey King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
More ignorant sophistry. In the communion line, there is no time to inquire about everyone coming forth. That is NOT the situation with a gay couple. They are CLEARLY and OPENLY repeating sinners with NO INTENTION of repenting of their sin, in fact, they want their sin celebrated and approved by the priest. If the person in the communion line is a grave sinner, such as an abortionist, the blessing with have little or no effect, but that is not the priest’s fault. And a priest knows that if a grave, publicly known sinner such as a mafia boss comes forward to receive a blessing, he should refuse. As a matter of fact, in Minnesota the gay crowd began wearing rainbow sashes and then coming up for communion and wanting a blessing. The bishop told his priests to refuse to bless them, because they were publicly advertising they were unrepentant sinners. That is the best course. Your comparison with people in a communion line is simply a dodge to avoid facing the real issues here. But to be fair, Fernandez also dodged the main question by pretending the only problem was “confusing it with marriage” when that was not the issue at all. The issue was “blessing sin” and nothing else.
Your whole argument seems to rest on the idea that one can conceptually separate the “couple” from the “union.” But this is a gratuitous and unfounded assertion. One can indeed separate the concept of the “individual” from the “couple,” but one cannot separate the “couple” from the “union,” because the union is the reason and purpose for them being a “couple” in the first place. The union is what defines them as a “couple,” which is linguistically singular not plural. A blessing of a couple is a blessing of their union, period. If you are still not convinced, then just substitute the word “mafia” for “couple,” then say out loud, “one can bless the mafia without blessing the mafia’s purpose and activities.” Now, doesn’t that sound specious and idiotic? When you bless any collective entity, you are blessing what that entity stands for. It may, in fact, be possible to bless individual members of that group without condoning the activities (although even that could present problems) but not the aggregate itself. As for Vatican I, note that this same council also explicitly said that the infallibility granted on rare occasions to the pope is solely for the purpose of the upholding timeless dogma and doctrine. It does not empower the Holy Father to discover new and novel teachings, especially those that contradict settled dogma and doctrine–said Vatican I.
Thanks, dear Larry Northon for this concise & cogent exposition.
Authentically Catholic curia & episcopate would be persuaded by this.
We don’t bless them now, at any rate.
“Vatican 1 moreover teachers, the Pope is the Father and Teacher of All Christian People, and as such, we are to adhere to his teachings with docility and religious submission of intellect and will.”
When the pope sanctions what is immoral and unbiblical, we are under no obligation to submit to his teaching. You are defending the indefensible here.
Athanasius, I’m wondering if someone with a thinly veiled political agenda will acknowledge your point. Thanks, though for a simple statement of truth. Simole statements of truth like yours are oftentimes just the elixir we all need.
You quote Pius X, without realising that he along with every other Pope except Francis would never conceive of, let alone write such a deliberately ambiguous and error ridden document and pass it on as ordinary magesterium. To place Francis in the same light as Pius X or JPII is laughable.
Mr Harold,
Blessings have never been denied individuals who sincerely ask for them. The scandal is about “couples “. Not individuals.
I feel like the African bishop who commented recently that the people of his continent are not idiots. Often it’s the humble and ordinary folk who see through the smoke and mirrors first.
So your position is that a priest may bless a pedophile, a pedophile that is unrepentant, and plans on continuing to abuse children. Same with a serial murderer. Because, according to you, these people are “individuals” who seek help living in accord with God’s law. Which is precisely what they are NOT doing. They really seek church approval for their continuing sin. They seek the church to look away and ignore their sin, as if it was not happening and as if serious grave mortal sin had NO EFFECT on their salvation at all. What a strange and convoluted Christianity you propose. It is quite similar, I assume, to what the devil would propose Christianity should become. Sin is without meaning in your world. Devious distinctions without any real difference, such as “Oh, I am not blessing their sin, I am blessing them so they can avoid their sin” are holy. Yet the document demands priests never inquire into their sinful nature and actions, merely bless it. Congratulations, you have effectively destroyed Christianity and rendered it meaningless.
Also, I find the references to quotes by Pius X to be unintentionally hilarious. Pius X was referring to a pope that teaches IN ACCORD with Catholic teaching, not one that desires to ignore or destroy Catholic teaching.
Harold, you write:
“As Fiducia Supplicans stresses repeatedly, that is all what this blessing is doing–blessing sinners in need of God’s help!”
There is already a blessing in place for that kind of situation, and that is the Sacrament of Reconciliation. What’s more, the liturgical blessing of the sacrament of confession not only forgives sin, but also bestows the grace of helping the sinner resist temptation. It also restores the merits of the good works the penitent has done in the past, thus placing him back in the state of grace.
FS claims none of these. At most it is benign, zero. At minus zero, it may well be a near occasion of sin. But I must admit, my opinion does not count.
Your discerning opinion is core Catholic and most valued, dear Margarita
Harold P. I agree with you. Unfortunately, there’s a subculture of Catholics who seem to think they are infallible, so therefore every statement the successor of Peter makes is up for public debate, condemnation, suspicion, and disgraceful mockery, and they can slander him as they see fit.
Jesus’s promise to protect Peter from the gates of hell are ignored by “the infallible”.
Dear ‘RJ1966’.
Since when have the learned, apostolically obedient, New Testament & Catechism of the Catholic Church faithful become a ‘cub=culture’, as you write? Preposterous!
Only in the minds of those following anti-Apostolic, immorality-embracing, Marxist flavored heresies, that are the new ‘good-news’ of a cadre of corrupt Catholic hierarchs & their naïve, flesh-enamored followers. You have been warned . . .
Caveat emptor!
Always in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
CORRECTION
“sub-culture’
Harold writes: “A blessing under the guidelines of FS is to bless the members of a same-sex couple simply as persons, entirely regardless of their sinful relationship. Anyone can receive a personal blessing even if they are in a sinful relationship, and this same principle applies to two persons who are in a sinful same-sex romantic relationship. The author has the impression that the blessing is ordered to blessing at least some aspect of the relationship, despite Fiducia Supplicans’ clear statements otherwise.”
However, FS itself states that, indeed, the “couple” may have the aspect of all that is “true, good, and humanly valid… in their relationships” blessed. However, what makes them a couple? That they just randomly appeared as two persons before a priest for a spontaneous blessing? Of course not — and they will reject that they are there as two individuals. They have come as a “couple.” What makes them a couple is precisely their sexual union. Therefore, as Cardinal Daniel Sturla concluded, “There it is no longer the blessing of the persons, but of the couple, and the entire tradition of the Church, even a document from two years ago, says that it’s not possible to do this.”
To try and water this down, to pretend that this is just the blessing of persons, is a sophistry.
Finally, if someone is unrepentant in a state of objective grave sin, approaching for a blessing is pointless: “Blessings without the right inner disposition of the administrator and the recipient are ineffective because blessings do not work ex opere operato (from the work performed) like the sacraments.” (Bishop Marian Eleganti)
As the late great Msgr. William Smith of NYC used to say with his wry smile: “Sodomy doesn’t fit.”
So for that reason alone, blessing same-sex couples is unfitting…
Superb. Thank you Dr. Malloy.
A question to ask George Bergoglio: “Can sins other than sodomy and adultery be blessed?” How about greed, gluttony, pride, racism, envy, wrath, theft, lying about one’s neighbor, and vengefulness? Let’s get rid of all church confessionals and turn them into “blessings boxes.” While we’re at it, since sin no longer exists, we may as well get rid of all crucifixes (as they did at Georgetown) because Christ’s reparative act of sacrifice for sin is now rendered meaningless. If Christ hadn’t risen from the dead, He’d be ‘turning over in his grave’ just about now.
Before Covid, I went to confession, and it was a rather perfunctory confession on my part, and the priest called me out on it. Said I wasn’t really contrite, which I probably wasn’t. That was a shock being called out like that. Alas, what had started out as a really reflective moment on my part was suddenly ruined (yes, ruined) by his cheery (yes, cheery) God forgives anyway; He’s merciful and loving, etc. The priest absolved me and shoo’d me out of the confession box.
Well, that’s–interesting, to say the least. I wonder what gave this priest the idea that you were not contrite. And you then concede that you “probably” were not contrite. Don’t you know? When you confessed the sin, did you intend to go out and sin again? Or did you intend to make every effort to avoid the sin in the future, even if you might sin again through weakness? If the latter, then you were indeed contrite. Your intention is what matters, not your feelings. And then you say that he cheerfully absolved you anyway? Well, if it really was manifest that you were not contrite, he should not have absolved you. But then, if you were not contrite, why go to confession at all? To brag about the sins you’ve committed and fully intend on committing again in the future? What kind of sense does that make? This whole situation is filled with contradictions. If I were you, I wouldn’t go back to that guy. He sounds more than a little mixed up.
“It is obvious that this document has already caused the very scandal that it instructs priests and deacons to avoid, namely, the misconception that the Catholic Church is changing her perennial moral teaching and that sodomy is now acceptable.”
Monsignor Fernandez would have done well to cite the 1975 Document of St. Paul VI (“Persona Humana”), where the sin of sodomy is addressed. The teaching of St. John Paul II on sexual ethics should have found resonance in the magisterium of Benedict XVI and Pope Francis.
I explain this, although these two Popes have worked for the progress of theology in line with the Council, it is likely that they preferred to remain in the traditional position, which regulates sexual ethics only in reference to this present life.
As said an Italian Author, the failure to receive the teaching of St. John Paul II does not give the ethical proposal of Fernandez’s document the persuasive force that would have come from envisioning the eschatological ideal, and consequently, it does not provide the moral strength necessary for a true victory over sodomy. The lack of reception of the teaching of St. John Paul II does not give FS’s ethical proposal that persuasive force, which would have come from presenting the eschatological ideal, and consequently, it does not offer the moral strength necessary for a true victory over sodomy.
We’re arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
Everyday folk are not attorneys or theologians. When they see a “gay couple” standing up at the altar being blessed by a priest, they will conclude that the Catholic Church is blessing gay marriages.
Bergoglio knows this. And he knows that the squawking by backwardists will eventually subside, and then it’s mission accomplished.
That’s *exactly* how evil Bergoglio and his papacy is and has been.
He has handed Jesus’ Mystical Body over to the torturers again.
Mr. Brineyman! BINGO! That’s exactly the plan here. just get a little toe hold into the blessing routine of the Church, and soon, homosexual/lesbian/trannies/ in time will all be coming to a local altar near you and receiving marital instructions from your local parish priest. And your right when you say that the Pope “has handed Jesus’ Mystical Body over to the torturers again”.
And, brineyman, let’s not think that Christ – the Supreme and Final Judge – isn’t aware of what Bergoglio is up to.
Yes – Pope Francis has decided to destroy Catholic teaching by simply IGNORING it. He will not bother to CHANGE Catholic teaching – that would destroy his papacy. So he decides to use the cowards way – teach people to just ignore Catholic teaching, and do what the world wants.
“Holy Mother Church withholds the sacraments from public sinners until they cooperate with divine grace and rectify their situation. Such discipline is for the good of the sinner and of the Mystical Body. The Church instructs anyone conscious of mortal sin not to receive the Eucharist before obtaining sacramental absolution. Thereby, the door of divine mercy is kept open. Renegades, wittingly or unwittingly, obscure the evil of moral abominations from the eyes of the sinner himself and of the public at large and thus close the door of divine mercy upon those most in need of it and by such scandals cause others to question their faith.”
That is why flaming pro-abortion politicians, known by all to be advocates of the “legal” murder of the child in the womb, should be denied the Eucharist.
Pope blesses Biden’s ability to receive communion despite beliefs
Harry, you’re right in my book. And in the situation you cite both Biden and Bergoglio will be held accountable. Someone who aids and abets a sinner is as culpable as the one who commints sin. A sin too often not recognized is the sin whereby our counsel or support leads another to sin.
Thanks for your response. I have appreciated your comments on CWR.
Since the West seems to be devolving/advancing into an Apostolic Age, how best can the Church settle-in while still truly evangelizing? Three thoughts, here, about the Future of History!
FIRST, about marriage, weaning the pagan tribes from primitive marriage customs was a long slog. Today, does the tug of primitive Secularism—a “sign of the times,” require “realistic” backsliding? Or not? Because of what’s now widely “irregular,” must the nature of “marriage” be blurred if only in pastoral practice and within a polyhedral Church? (NOTE below.)
SECOND, the eminent historian Peter Brown (“The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, A.D. 200-1000”; 1996/2003) explains the early unity of the Church in the first few centuries….Medieval centralization in the papacy had not yet fully occurred. While somewhat polyhedral, the Church was actually more like a “geodesic dome”—with neither a “center” nor “periphery.” Each diocese enjoyed direct vertical access within the communion of saints, largely by the local veneration of relics from the saints (the “universal call to holiness”!).
THIRD, not included in his analysis is the central (!) fact additional to saintly relics, and undivided across geography or even across time, of the Real Presence—in each particular sacrifice and thanksgiving of the Mass. Moreover, confirmed and elevated by the historical event of the Incarnation was/is the universality of our elevated human nature (and of the Natural Law as affirmed in Veritatis Splendor).
So, in collegial unity between the Papacy and the Successors of the Apostles, and in robust consultation with those actually heeding ““the universal call to holiness”—HOW to actually rebuild the perennial and sacramental Church, as did St. Francis? Instead of a ragged and dead-end “blessing” of the third-option, why not St. Francis’ Portiuncula and then more: “a future full of hope” (Jeremiah 29:11)?
(NOTE: In the early centuries, marriage following a separation was prohibited [Synod of Carthage, 407 A.D.], and marriage to the wife of a man still alive merited excommunication [the Synod of Angers, 453 A.D.]. THEN, finally, the very nature of marriage was recognized as a sacrament [Pope Lucius III and the Synod of Verona, 1184 A.D., and the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyon, 1274 A.D]—and “raised by Christ to a sign and means of salvation” [Articulated by Pope St. John Paul II in 2001, cited by Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, in Robert Dodaro (ed.), “Remaining in the Truth of Christ,” Ignatius, 2014, p. 222]).
Apostolic Age? What’s that? Cardinal Burke? Who’s he?
Prof Malloy’s thorough analysis of FS is finds completion midway citing the oxymoron, “The Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice FS 11″, an oxymoron in that it suggests it does have the power, which Malloy finds “puzzling”.
What this confirms is the cognitive reaction of most to what’s visibly manifest. Optics. It is as perceived, prior to chimeral machinations. That has been the overwhelming reaction to FS – inclusive of the well thought out reasons Malloy gives us for rejecting FS. Although we may ask if optics is the common consensus, could Card Fernández et al have been oblivious?
Very clear writing! Thank you, Dr. Malloy!
When we see Jesus’ Matthew 24 sign for Jesus’ Second Coming, which is the “Desolating Abomination” “Standing in the Holy Place”, this kicks in another Apocalyptic event. Jesus says that He will strike the Shepherd so His sheep will be dispersed. Which makes sense. Jesus doesn’t want us forced to follow the “Desolating Abomination”.
Zechariah 13:7 Oracles Concerning the End of False Prophecy. The Song of the Sword.
Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the one who is my associate—oracle of the LORD of hosts. Strike the shepherd that the sheep may be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones. In all the land—oracle of the LORD—two thirds of them will be cut off and perish, and one third will be left. I will bring the one third through the fire; I will refine them as one refines silver, and I will test them as one tests gold. They will call upon my name, and I will answer them; I will say, “They are my people,” and they will say, “The LORD is my God.”
There is a slight difference in Jesus’ delivery in His apocalyptic quote from Zechariah. Zechariah’s prophecy states “strike the shepherd…” Jesus quotes it as, “I will strike the shepherd…”. USCCB Bible notes reference both Zechariah 13 and Matthew 24 “The Destruction of the Temple Foretold”, to Jesus’ Matthew 26:31 ‘I will strike the shepherd and the sheep of the flock will be dispersed’, quote.
Matthew 26:31
‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be dispersed’
USCCB NABRE Bible Note for Matthew 26:31
Will have…shaken: literally, “will be scandalized in me”; see note on Mt 24:9–12. I will strike…dispersed: cf. Zec 13:7.
Matthew 24 The Destruction of the Temple Foretold
USCCB NABRE Bible Note for Matthew 24:9-12
Matthew has used Mk 13:9–12 in his missionary discourse (Mt 10:17–21) and omits it here. Besides the sufferings, including death, and the hatred of all nations that the disciples will have to endure, there will be worse affliction within the church itself. This is described in Mt 24:10–12, which are peculiar to Matthew. Will be led into sin: literally, “will be scandalized,” probably meaning that they will become apostates; see Mt 13:21 where “fall away” translates the same Greek word as here. Betray: in the Greek this is the same word as the hand over of Mt 24:9. The handing over to persecution and hatred from outside will have their counterpart within the church. False prophets: these are Christians; see note on Mt 7:15–20. Evildoing: see Mt 7:23.
Matthew 24:3 The Great Tribulation
“Tell us, when will this happen, and what sign will there be of your coming, and of the end of the age?”…
…“When you see the desolating abomination spoken of through Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains, a person on the housetop must not go down to get things out of his house, a person in the field must not return to get his cloak. Woe to pregnant women and nursing mothers in those days. Pray that your flight not be in winter or on the sabbath, for at that time there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will be.
Divine Mercy in My Soul, 635 The Blessed Virgin Mary :
… you have to speak to the world about His great mercy and prepare the world for the Second Coming of Him who will come, not as a merciful Savior, but as a just Judge. Oh, how terrible is that day! Determined is the day of justice, the day of divine wrath. The angels tremble before it. Speak to souls about this great mercy while it is still the time for [granting] mercy. If you keep silent now, you will be answering for a great number of souls on that terrible day. …
Acts of the Apostles 26:17
I shall deliver you from this people and from the Gentiles to whom I send you, to open their eyes that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God,
Matthew 6:9 The Lord’s Prayer
your kingdom come,
your will be done on earth as it is in heaven …/
/… Subject us not to trial but
deliver us from the evil one.’
Divine Mercy in My Soul, 429
I heard these words spoken distinctly and forcefully within my soul, You will prepare the world for My final coming.
Andrea Cionci- “Buenos Aires: lightning on the halo and keys of St. Peter. Bergoglio at the end of the road?”
https://popehead.substack.com/p/andrea-cionci-buenos-aires-lightning?
It is a ‘Victor’, and not necessarily Pope Francis, who stands next to our King Jesus Christ as His “Anointed One”, Ruling the World, when Jesus Second Coming, Comes in His Power and Glory to Rule on earth.
Revelation 2:26
To the victor, who keeps to my ways until the end, I will give authority over the nations.
Revelation 3:12
“‘“The victor I will make into a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will never leave it again. On him I will inscribe the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, as well as my new name.
Revelation 11:15
Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet. There were loud voices in heaven, saying, ‘The kingdom of the world now belongs to our Lord and to his Anointed, and he will reign forever and ever.’
Revelation 12:10
“Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: Now have salvation and power come, the reign of our God and the authority of his Anointed One”
Acts of the Apostles 1:6 The Ascension of Jesus.
When they had gathered together they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He answered them, “It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has established by his own authority. But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” When he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight.
Matthew 19:28
Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you that you who have followed me, in the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, will yourselves sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Revelation 3:21
I will give the victor the right to sit with me on my throne, as I myself first won the victory and sit with my Father on his throne.
Steven Marten,
I don’t believe Our Lord Jesus specifically called Cardinal “Victor” Manuel Fernandez to be His Victor, “anointed one.”
Bergoglio has sealed his fate. Fernandez has painted himself moronic. FS has not legitimacy at all. It requires the circular file.
When a man assumes office without the intention to serve its purpose does he actually hold that office?
Spot-on, dear James.
Catholic marriage is said by canon lawyers to be non est when it is found that one or both partners entered into the sacrament “in bad faith”.
There’s overwhelming evidence that Jorge Bergoglio entered the papacy in bad faith.
James, the answer to your question is a resounding “NO”.
This should be so simple! Be clear: We welcome all sinners to church to be close to the Word of God. Eucharist is for those not in grave sin & trying to “sin no more” We should bless all who are trying to stop sinning. Not bless those intending to keep sinning.
And, dear Chris Barlow, that means Pope Francis & Cardinal Fernandez should not be receiving the Holy Eucharist (they commit sacrilege when they do), because they advocate blessing of those in unrepentant sexual sin; and invite advocates of infant murder to the Eucharistic Table; and, thus, are themselves in mortal sin & devoid of saving grace.
Catholic teaching is perfectly clear: PF & CF can only avoid hellfire by public repentance, an appropriately rigorous public penance, by abjuring any form of blessing of those in active same-sex relationships; & by clearly instructing that The Holy Eucharist cannot be given to advocates of infant murder.
They may have become corrupt but let’s be sure, The Church has not!
Ever doing my best to lovingly obey King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
Chris Barlow: Christ’s teachings are not complicated. He instructed, “Let the children come unto Me.” Even small children comprehend the laws of nature and the teachings of the Church. We dont need half-baked Argentinian theologians to teach us the faith. Perhaps the next Synod should convene 100 seven year old Catholic children and pose to them the question “Is it God’s will that two men should have sex; was that God’s plan from Creation?” Let the children compose the Synodal document. Let the theologians stay home. Let the bishops take instruction from the children.
All of this presumes that same sex relationships are sexually active relationships. Many are not sexually active at all. There is interpersonal love and commitment, and a desire for the eternal salvation of the other. The “marriage” is for the purpose of legal protections. The assumption that all same sex relationships are necessarily oriented to sodomy is an insult. To presume mortal sin on the basis of external interpretations is, itself, a sin of presumption (not to mention, judgment in absence of the facts). Be careful where you trod!
LJ Christian, a “same sex” or “homosexual” relationship is distinguished from a friendship by the fact that it has a sexual dimension. It would be willfully ignorant to pretend that FS is not discussing sexual relationships. It may be true that many homosexual relationships involve friendship as well, but the sexual dimension of the relationship is a perversion of the good of friendship.
There is no reason that a friendship should be exclusive and there is no reason it should have the legal protections of a marriage.
Yes, two men can be friends. No question about it. But to simulate a marriage is mortally sinful whether you’re sodomizing or not. Why, because it’s living a lie. And don’t even try to imply that there is love when it’s based on false premises.
A brief, incisive article in ‘First Things’ gives us Catholics a novel perspective.
“The confusion surrounding the pope’s recent statement Fiducia Supplicans, a document that is ambiguous about whether Catholic clergy can bless those in same-sex relationships, says much about the times in which we live. Catholic theologians will argue that Rome has not changed, that the fog of distinctions contained in this latest statement means that it does not affect core Roman dogma. But that is not the point: The watching world cares nothing for such sophistry and sees here a fundamental cultural shift. And it seems naive to think that a fundamental change in pastoral practice will not lead to a significant transformation of attitudes. Such compromises—and this is most surely a compromise—always end up being far more sympathetic to the position they are moving toward than that from which they are moving away. When the pope sows chaos within his church on the matter of gay blessings, it is likely to affect us all—Catholic clergy and laity, certainly, but also us Protestants.”
“For Protestants (and likely many Catholics), this is a reminder that the papacy is not a cure-all for the alleged problems surrounding Protestant notions of scriptural sufficiency and clarity. Saint Paul promoted both the importance of Scripture and a church marked by ordained office for the preservation and transmission of the faith. Neither on its own can do the task by itself, and if Protestantism is vulnerable to not taking the church seriously enough, then a strong and hierarchical ecclesiology is vulnerable to generating its own forms of chaos. The system only has the competence and integrity of its leadership.”
“It would be easy in such circumstances to indulge in a certain Protestant triumphalism, as many Catholics now seem to face a conflict of conscience akin to that which Luther faced. Yet the problem is that the woes of contemporary Catholicism are not so easily separated from those of contemporary conservative Protestants at this point. Catholicism has for many years given us an umbrella under which we can shelter from the worst excesses of the broader culture. Whether it is the fight against abortion, intrusive health care mandates, or the imposition of political ideology through regulations governing adoption, the Catholic Church has led, and has had the financial power and cultural presence to do so in a way unavailable to Protestants. Strange to tell, she has also been able to maintain with relative impunity some positions that the broader culture finds intolerable among Protestants. Some years ago, my own appointment to the editorial board of an academic journal was almost vetoed because it was discovered that I belong to a denomination that does not ordain women. The objection was only withdrawn when it was pointed out to the complainant that other members of the same board were Catholics and thus members of a church with an all-male clergy.”
“Most immediately, Fiducia Supplicans will affect the pope’s own clergy, who will now come under huge pressure to bless same-sex couples even if their own consciences are troubled or compromised by doing so. Many will no doubt feel some sympathy for Luther at the Diet of Worms, when he stated clearly that it was not safe for a Christian to speak or act against his conscience.”
“But Catholic clergy will not be the only ones touched by this dilemma. When the leadership is ambiguous on such an important matter, it weakens the position of the laity. What of the public-school teacher under pressure to accept the kaleidoscopic identities of the sexual revolution? What about the employee of the software company pressured to do the same? The case of Franz Jägerstätter, so memorably retold in the movie ‘A Hidden Life’, is a good, albeit extreme, example of the courage needed by an ordinary Christian when abandoned by a craven, corrupt, and cowardly church leadership. That is the position in which the pope’s latest antics have placed ordinary people — people for whom taking a stand on the truth could cost them far more than it would ever cost the pope. The public-school teacher could lose everything. The pope risks only the goodwill of the New York Times editorial column. And if he is not willing to risk that, why should anybody else bother to make a real sacrifice?”
“This will also affect Protestants. Whether we like it or not, the officer class of our culture cares little for debates about transubstantiation and papal authority. It makes no real distinction between Catholics and Protestants. In its eyes we are all Christians and thus the shenanigans of the pope will put pressure on us all. The argument will be that, if Rome can change, why can we all not change? The possibility of sheltering under that broad cultural umbrella that Rome has provided will be withdrawn on this issue and we will feel the pain of that.”
“There are two kinds of leaders: those who see their role as remaking their organizations in their own image, regardless of the collateral damage done to those further down the totem pole; and those who seek to protect the interests of the weakest and most vulnerable of those dependent upon them. Throughout his papacy, Francis has presented himself as the latter, but now it would seem that this has been no more than a specious cover for being the former. A good leader speaks with clarity. Francis seems incapable of doing so. And unfortunately, given the high profile of the Catholic Church, the chaos in Rome has implications for Wittenberg and Geneva, too.”
By Carl Trueman, Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies at Grove City College and a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
A Calvinist theologian who has a better handle on the issue than many credentialed Catholics. With the excellent Protestant biblical scholarship, growing emphasis on the early Fathers it may portend a gathering of the faithful Christian clans centered on Christ and deeper understanding, which Trueman expresses of the Chair of Peter. We wouldn’t have converts, some great if God’s grace were not at work.
As far as Christians in US courts are concerned, the Supreme Court ruled that the government does not get to decide what the demands of your religion are when it comes to freedom to exercise your religion. This applies whether the other side appeals to the catechism or to the Pope’s statements or common practice in the Church. You don’t need to have an expert theologian’s argument at hand for why your practice differs from the Pope’s.
We have a three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. If the Magisterial authorities issue confusing and self-contradictory statements (or none at all) rather than Magisterial ones, we must fall back on Scripture AND Tradition. To do that practically, we need to know where Tradition is to be found, and what it says.
Very well commented, dear Amanda.
Re: “We have a three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.”: I whole-heartedly agree & draw attention to our 4th leg, that is The Holy Spirit of God (see Ephesians 1:17; Romans 8:9; etc.).
The fruit of The Holy Spirit living in us – Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Goodness, Generosity, Faithfulness, Humility, and Self Control – is greatly needed.
Ever in the love of The Holy Trinity; blessings from marty
A very good article. Kudos to Dr. Malloy for having had the courage to publish it. Concerning the distinction between a couple and a union, note that in para. 30 of FS, the distinction is collapsed when any couple in sinful sexual relationships is said to be “in a union”. This makes sense since two people can be a couple only if they are united in some way. Finally, to those scandalized by Dr. Malloy’s critical reading of FS, I would ask them how FS can be accepted as gospel-truth when it so clearly contradicts the gospel (not to mention Pope Francis’s 2021 Responsum). Where Peter is, there Paul must also be, ready to rebuke him to his face. (See Galatians 2:11; see also Galatians 1:5.) Pray Peter accepts the rebuke!
Correction: Galatian 1:8.
Thank you, Professor Malloy, for your clear and concise defense of The Deposit Of Faith that should be sent to every Bishop and Cardinal.
Thank you Dr. M. Happy New Year to all!
Pope Francis will not be alive to experience the evils that will flow from FS. Presently, some are having to be groomed as managers of those situations and their “progression” / “development” that will have to be attended to with “sensitivity” and “consistency”, today and later after he has passed.
WE NEED A SOLUTION, NOT ANALYSIS AD NAUSEUM
(1) I believe that the deterioration of the integrity, coherence, and authority of Roman Catholic Doctrine began with this statement in the Vatican II document on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae):
“This Vatican Council…leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”
(2) I believe that every theologically well educated person knows that the Council did NOT “leave untouched traditional Catholic doctrine” on religious liberty, it only pretended to, so that new doctrines from outside the Church (separation of Church and State doctrines developed by American Protestants and secularists), that contradict traditional doctrine (just read The Syllabus Of Errors, by Pope Pius IX, 1864), could spread like wildfire through the Church.
(3) And now the same maneuver is plainly obvious again with Fiducia Supplicans (The Blessing of Sodomites). This maneuver could be called a “hermeneutics of deception.”
(4) Professor Christopher J. Malloy’s solid analytic take down of Fiducia Supplicans won’t make any more difference than did Archbishop Lefebvre’s solid analytic takedown of the Vatican II document on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae).
(5) Just as with Dignitatis Humanae, the false, evil doctrines of Fiducia Supplicans have been fully accepted by 99% of all Catholic bishops and priests, and this state of affairs will continue as long as the Church continues. As Church doctrine, the pope has spoken and the matter is settled. I believe that there’s no chance of this being reversed here on earth in this age.
(6) But I will not stop practicing the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith. I just will do it APART from false bishops and priests. They have left the Church. They promote sin. I will have nothing to do with them.
I recognize that something terrible and heretofore unthinkable has happened: The papacy and nearly all the bishops have chosen the supreme Darkness over the supreme Light.
(7) I think that each Catholic must choose: Will I go down the easy, smooth “go-along-to-get along” path of Darkness, or go up the hard road that is described by Jesus: “the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” (Matthew 7:14).
I.e., the Way of the Cross. Calvary. The Dolorous Passion.
(8) Is my perspective too harsh, too extreme? Well, I’d love to hear of a better solution that allows me and my family to stay with Christ. I keep waiting, but no one ever proposes a better solution that keeps me and my family from fellowship and partnership with global pro-sodomy activists. But if someone smarter than me (nearly everyone) and more holy than me (practically all the people) has such a better solution, I am all ears! Please, won’t some Catholics lead us out of this de facto slavery in Egypt!
Dear Frank Cannondale, thank you for so perfectly & loyally expressing the horrid choices that we true Catholics are facing in 2024.
How are we to recognize true Catholic Christians? No less than as the supra-papal authority of Beloved Apostle Saint John tells us, in the words of Jesus Christ, who is GOD Incarnate: “My sheep listen to My Voice; I recognize those who follow Me; I give them eternal life, they will never perish, no one can snatch them from My Hand.” see John 10:27-30. These are ‘The Israel of God’; saved & sanctified eternally.
It’s not complex: we really don’t need to understand more than that those who obstinately disobey King Jesus Christ are NOT His sheep, HAVE been snatched from His Hand, WILL perish; & WON’T inherit eternal life with Christ & His Most Blessed Mother Mary & all those wonderful saints & martyrs who have loved & obeyed God over the last 2,000 years.
By starting a false, new, anti-Apostolic religion PF, CF, & their apparatchiks bulk excommunicate themselves. Let’s always pray for them to repent & be saved.
Secure in the eternal love of King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
Eutychian runaround stall
Thank you Harold P. I agree with your dissent.
Harold P is not “dissenting”, he’s claiming the orthodox position.
FYI not that I’d agree with him. Or you.
Collin says Harold P’s expositions are the needle in the haystack. Pope Francis is preaching against spiritual worldliness but FS protects and celebrates it. It’s the whole haystack. Needle helps nothing. That’s why Collin says truth already prevailed.
Harold P prays for the truth to prevail as in CCC 882. Neither CCC 882 nor FS can help what is wrong from being wrong.
Such has to be undone, or reworked, that by the time that is achieved the parties will have died and truth will have outstripped them. It can’t be anyone’s fault for not having been able to help them in the nick before they died.
A quick glance at the antics of the feral homosexuality on display at pride months show that these people don’t have any concept of humility. They live for the here and new, eternity is a concept for the future,in their mindset they live for the pollution of the act and revell in it’s courseness! Listening and journeying only conjures up in corrupted mindset, if they’re normally of a Catholic mindset that the pope is being lead a merry dance and that’s the whole point of this. Since they serve only the infernal producer of lies. It’s interesting that exorcists well state that even the depravity of these acts embarrass them; that even devils are disgusted speaks volumes! It’s over to Jesus and Mary now for the Church.