Vatican City, Jan 13, 2024 / 10:15 am (CNA).
Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s Secretary of State, has commented on the divided reaction to the Fiducia Supplicans document, amid a great backlash from episcopal conferences.
“This document has aroused very strong reactions; this means that a very delicate, very sensitive point has been touched; it will take further investigation,” Cardinal Parolin said on Friday, Jan. 12 during a conference held at the Accademia dei Lincei in Rome.
The cardinal went on to say that “if these ferments serve to walk according to the Gospel to give answers to today, these ferments are also welcome,” while reiterating that “the Church is open and attentive to the signs of the times but must be faithful to the Gospel.”
When asked in a follow-up question by an Italian journalist if the document was a mistake, the Vatican’s top diplomat responded curtly: “I do not enter into these considerations; the reactions tell us that it has touched a very sensitive point.”
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith’s Dec. 18 document has made it permissible for priests to offer extra-liturgical blessings for couples in “irregular” situations, including gay couples, noting “that it offers a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings, permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings.”
“What has been said in this Declaration regarding the blessings of same-sex couples is sufficient to guide the prudent and fatherly discernment of ordained ministers in this regard. Thus, beyond the guidance provided above, no further responses should be expected about possible ways to regulate details or practicalities regarding blessings of this type,” Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), wrote in Fiducia Supplicans.
However, following widespread backlash from episcopal conferences in Africa and Eastern Europe, and strong denouncements from some of the Church’s senior prelates, Fernández issued a five-page press release on Jan. 4 to provide clarification on the document, writing that its application will depend “on local contexts and the discernment of each diocesan bishop with his diocese.”
“In some places, no difficulties arise for their immediate application, while in others it will be necessary not to introduce them, while taking the time necessary for reading and interpretation,” Fernández continued in the letter.
One of the strongest statements to date came from Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu, Archbishop of Kinshasa and President of the Symposium of the Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM).
In his Jan. 11 letter, Besungu stressed that the African bishops “have strongly reaffirmed their communion with Pope Francis,” but noted that Fiducia Supplicans caused “a shockwave” and has “sown misconceptions and unrest in the minds of many lay faithful, consecrated persons, and even pastors, and has aroused strong reactions.”
In his address to the clergy of Rome on Jan. 13, the pope provided clarifying remarks on the document, stating that “the provision on the blessings of gay couples concerns people, not organizations. If the LGBT association comes, no, but always people. We bless people, not sin.”
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.
When Bergoglio opens his mouth, confusion pours out. It seems beyond him to speak clearly, concisely, and with power what is and what is not sin. More importantly, when he gets wand up in this side issues, the centrality of Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected is lost; he is excluded from the conversation. I view that as the first sign that when Christ is flagrantly ignored, then evil is afoot.
Saints protect us and may the will of God be done.
The name is not Bergoglio, it’s Pope Francis. You violate the fundamental truth, respect and devotion that is owed to him and his office. Just because we are not used to the ways of this pontificate, that does not mean his is wrong. Nor does it mean that he ceases to be Christ’s vicar and one moved by the Spirit of God. Please pray to Mary for insight into Pope Francis. I truly believe that Pope Francis will be vindicated in the years to come.
Please. His blatant heresies, which are numerous, are not simply idiosyncratic “ways of his pontificate”. And the support he has given for crimes against humanity entitle any observer to disrespect him as a man no matter what his status or title he holds inside or outside the Church.
Given the strongly encouraging trend that the priesthood is becoming more “conservative”, i.e., orthodox with each incoming generation, it is quite likely that someday Bergoglioism will be defined as a heresy and anathemized by either a future Supreme Pontiff or Ecumenical Council. Pope Francis is our first bad pope in something like two centuries so it’s really hard for ultramontanists to recognize the evidence. Of course, he is very machiavellian, so that helps him hide the hypocrisy behind a pastoral facade.
Patrice: We pray for Bergoglio whenever we attend Holy Mass.
Amen, sister, and Amen.
Pictured. El Hombre Jorge in his former cantina bouncer mode [prior to the ferments] exhorting a wainful Card Parolin. Now the cardinal perceives these ferments [useful deprecation for outrages] as deserving attention. Even the previously thought progressive African Card Ambongo issues a sharply worded rebuke.
What next? Who would have thought at the Vatican war room that for a change ballistic missiles would be incoming. Dare there be papal investigations like at Tyler and oustings. Likely not. Too messy. Expect lots of platitudes, thoughtful observations.
Africans en masse, handfuls of Europeans and Americans, armfuls of S Americans and Asians are prepared for battle, commander Ambongo holding high the dreadful banner “We bless people, not sin”.
However we may agree that FS is a well crafted document completely in line with tradition, as Fr Robert Gahl assoc Prof Ethics at the Pontifical U of the Holy Cross in Rome would argue, it nevertheless is read by the majority world audience that Fiducia is an approbation of homosexual relationships [as Fr Gahl also agrees]. Why, if so well crafted? Aquinas correctly held as a major premise that it’s the act that determines its morality not the intent per se. People generally perceive the act as determinative, in this instance the act of blessing as affirmative of homosexuality, whether as a double blind, as explained below by Anna, for good or for evil.
Father, with all do respect, paragraph 25 that insults the a pastoral approach informed by the application of doctrine as necessarily the product of elitist narcissism is in line with tradition?
Edward, I’m quoting Fr Gahl on his assessment of FS, not my approval. FS is filled with double meaning, or what psychology terms as double blind comments. “Thus, when people ask for a blessing, an exhaustive moral analysis should not be placed as a precondition for conferring it” (FS 25).
This can be interpreted as either making little of no precondition or going too far in examining the request. So if the texts are read positively as Fr Gahl implies, it would be considered acceptable. I would not because of the seeming purposeful double blind wording. But hasn’t that been a modus operandi of this pontificate?
That so many clergy, priests and bishops are interpreting the texts as a green light to bless unrepentant deviants is consistent with the early interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, which virtually all bishops and cardinals inclusive of conservatives believed the texts including ch 8 were theologically orthodox. It wasn’t until opposite, well thought out opinions appeared that the same approving prelates reread the texts more intelligently and came to opposite conclusions regarding their previous assessment. Nevertheless, even if the wording was perfectly clear and orthodox the act itself of blessing would be interpreted as an endorsement of homosexual relationships.
Edward. The double blind is seen in the previous sentence of FS 25, “instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying”, which suggests the priest forgo interrogation and simply offer a needed blessing. Although if I confer the blessing for that need I’m also blessing a homosexual relationship. Now it must also be understood Edward that there is no canon law requirement that I should interrogate any and all who ask for a blessing. I do not ask, Are you homosexuals?, or are you adulterers?, and so forth. I don’t do impromptu inquisitions. I examine persons when appropriate in the process of reconciliation. If I were to enquire, the persons would have to be known, or give indication of irregular behavior. Not a facile task and certainly a delicate one.
Correction: I meant a double bind, not blind. A double bind in psychology is a dilemma in communication in which an individual or group receives two or more reciprocally conflicting messages. For example, the proposition in FS that we may bless a couple as persons rather than their homosexual behavior, actually contains two conflicting messages. 1. That you may bless two persons only. 2. That in doing 1, you also bless two homosexuals living together.
A double blind in psychology is when neither the examiner nor the two participants are aware of who is being tested.
Among other questionable items, Cardinal Fernandez published an account of his erotic conversation with a 16 year old girl. It’s going to be difficult for the DDF to operate under the leadership of a man who needs to be investigated as a child predator.
Looks like Pope Francis is testing himself, not the sinners, to see how far he can fall?
““This document has aroused very strong reactions; this means that a very delicate, very sensitive point has been touched; it will take further investigation,” Cardinal Parolin said on Friday, Jan. 12 during a conference held at the Accademia dei Lincei in Rome.”
This is a fine example of the real evil that feeds the current situation and has been feeding other similar situations. Blessing homosexual couples (unions, whatever) came as a result of the use of murky and deceitful language when speaking of God’s matters.
What we have here: cardinal Parolin states that the reason for “very strong reactions” to ‘FS’ is that it “touched a very sensitive point”. No, it is not the real reason. The real reason “for very strong reactions” is that ‘FS’ is heretical, contrary to our faith and God’s design. People react strongly not because they are “homophobes” or “latent homosexuals” or “sensitive” but because they know the apostolic teaching on the particular matter which ‘FS’ violates. A heresy coming from Vatican is shocking indeed. Could anyone imagine apostle Paul blessing “a homosexual couple”? – If not then it is the end of the story and a heresy must be called plainly “a heresy”.
However, it appears to be difficult to do so for many because the document in question is so well crafted. ‘FS’ sets a double bind: we bless a couple but without approving their activity together. “A double bind” in psychology is a term for two contradictory messages given simultaneously, one cancels another so a mind is trapped (a double mind is believed to be responsible for some mental disorders). “They bless a homosexual couple” – “they do not approve it” sounds like madness so those who are pro- such blessings embrace the first part while those who are against them are supposed to embrace the second part – and some manage to embrace both, including some priests. The solution here is to ask “if the Church already blessed homosexual persons before why do we need a new document?” The response is usually “but not a couple” and then a person gives a blind stare; there is hope for them waking up and seeing for what purpose ‘FS’ was written. Or not.
I was told by a good Roman Catholic priest that to become holy means “to become a whole person”, in Christ. Clearly the force which is growing within the Church now is the vector opposite to becoming a whole person or whole Church but towards the disintegration of the persons making a disintegrated anti-church, with its peculiar documents, language and so on.
“This document has aroused very strong reactions; this means that a very delicate, very sensitive point has been touched; it will take further investigation.”
“Sensitive point”? “Investigation”? But wait, we did both steps . . . we spoke unilaterally and now are counting “one, two, three”!
Meanwhile, is (endangered?) Cardinal Fernandez either wising up or standing down? “I must say that I don’t think I will be in the news in the foreseeable future because in the dicastery we don’t foresee topics that could be very controversial, like the last ones.” The last line in: https://www.ncregister.com/news/vatican-s-doctrinal-office-preparing-very-important-document-on-human-dignity-cardinal-fernandez-says
About the universal scourge of siloed BUREAUCRACY, and worse, might we suppose that the Vatican might convene at least a few cardinals in the same room at the same time and with the same and living Magisterium in mind? Beginning to “listen” with both ears?
Such an “investigation” (visitation?) is very HEARTENING of course. And, hopefully even part of a trend, given the recent warning issued by the same Cardinal Parolin and Pope Francis to Germania (with mention of possible excommunication) to stand down on female ordinations or any Anglican-style perpetual synodalish thingy. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/11/24/vatican-draws-line-on-womens-ordination-and-homosexuality-in-new-letter-to-german-bishops/
Sometimes and over the long term, the Holy Spirit “writes straight [double entendre intended] with crooked lines.” Might the next conclave even elect an African as the next pope? These are Apostolic times, and the 5th-century St. Augustine was a Berber from North Africa.
I believe we’ve had at least two African popes in the past and many African saints.
God bless Africa.
The pope says “We bless people,not sin.” Really? It sure doesn’t look like that to the rest of the world. It is one thing to bless an individual, separate and apart from others. It is quite another thing to bless couples, two people together at once, who deliberately embrace and celebrate a sinful lifestyle.
The “bless people, not sin” phrase fails. The couple heading for an abortion want a blessing before the premeditated murder. The two teens want a blessing before committing sodomy. The mafia hit-couple want a blessing before the kill. The boss and secretary want a blessing before committing adultery. In each case, the priest has been asked for the blessing and it is self-evident that the couple are going to do the sin. Yet, the Pope is saying, “bless the people, not the sin” … and keep it under 15 seconds!
Theater of Pontiff Francis: the Secretary of State, played by Eminence Parolin, takes the stage to “groom” the faithful with “diplo-prop.”
Perhaps a “secret accord” confected by the “ever-so-faithful-Secretariat-of-State-bureaucracy” can satisfy this “delicate” situation.
Yes, Yes says “the-monarch-Pontiff” Francis: “a man of delicacy” is “our man” for “this our moment.”
Here is a “non-diplomatic dispatch,” from a “a non-delicate” apostle, who died for the Gospel, rather than “hand-it-over” to the empire: “Woe to you if you do not preach the Gospel…. If for this life only you have hoped in Christ, you are of all men most to be pitied.”
And the last word to “The Pontiff Francis Players” is from The Man Crucified by the empire: “You cannot serve both God and Mammon.”
Good explanation of “double bind.” It perfectly explains Fiducia Supplicans and every statement and document that has come from this confused papacy: a papacy—which by now should be evident– is intentionally contradicting 2,000 years of Christ’s revealed truth and scandalizing the world! But they try to cover their rear ends and hoodwink the faithful with double-speak, nonsensical documents like Fiducia Supplicans.
Parolin has a convincing grasp of the obvious. Christs Catholic Church is being “governed” by complete idiots. And we’re being played for fools by agents of Satan. God, please help us.
“This document has aroused very strong reactions; this means that a very delicate, very sensitive point has been touched; it will take further investigation” …
It will take further revocation.
In 1966 the bishops removed the requirement to abstain from meat on Friday. However, there was a Part B: Catholics were highly encouraged to continue some form of penance on Friday. But what we heard was “Whoo-hoo, hamburgers on Friday!” When, if ever, did you hear a priest mention Part B? And at the moment Catholics/non-Catholics are hearing “Whoo-hoo, the Catholic Church approves of same sex relationships, and soon same sex couples will be able to get married in the Church.” And the corollary is “If the Church changed this teaching, then it can change anything.” Women priests, birth control, abortion, sex outside of marriage (well, that is now a given), euthanasia, pornography, etc. are now all on the table.
I think the teaching on birth control/contraception has already been de facto changed, and that is a large part of the reason we are where we are.
The point it touched is note other than the rejection of Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the perennial Magisterium by a reigning pontiff. Cardinal “China” has the temerity to sell Chinese Catholics into the hands of genocidal maniacs but he can’t challenge “the boss.”
We are led by faithless morons and cowards.
The problem is that Cardinal Parolin and his Vatican pals love having a “very sensitive point” touched.
That is the truth, as we are counseled by the Secretary-of-Paradigm-Shift, that his “apparatus” is fostering a shift, which we can all now recognize is away from Jesus and his apostles, to a new paradigm, and “this their reset” requires diplomacy…to “pull it all off.”
Nausea! Eternally wrong if one believes two people pleasuring themselves physically is love. It’s selfish thrill. No bond. Many involved. Such would be the consequences of surruptitously giving the green light through tangential blessings. Am afraid the cat’s out of the bag now. Time will tell. Always does. Then it ends.