ACI Africa, Mar 20, 2024 / 09:00 am (CNA).
Fiducia Supplicans, the declaration by the Vatican Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith (DDF) permitting the blessing of same-sex couples and couples in other “irregular situations,” was perceived as “cultural colonization” in Africa, the president of the Symposium of Episcopal Conference of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM) said.
In a March 17 interview with the French-language Catholic television channel KTO, Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo deplored the lack of “synodality” in the release of the DDF document that has evoked mixed reactions and deep division among Catholic bishops across the world since its publication on Dec. 18, 2023.
“In this declaration, there was a whole cultural problem, because the African continent perceived Fiducia Supplicans as cultural colonization,” said Ambongo, the archbishop of Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
What Fiducia Supplicans proposes is “a kind of Western imperialism, but on a cultural level,” he said, adding that “practices that are considered normal in the West were imposed on other peoples.”
“I think this explains the virulence of Africa’s reaction,” Ambongo said, alluding to the Jan. 11 decision of the bishops in Africa not to implement Fiducia Supplicans on the continent following a Dec. 20 appeal for opinions from presidents of Catholic bishops’ conferences of Africa and its islands in view of having a “single synodal pronouncement.”
“I don’t think this text was necessary at the time,” Ambongo went on to say referring to the declaration. “We had just come out of the first session of the Synod on Synodality, and we’re now waiting for the second session. All these questions we raised during the first session of the synod; we’re going to come back to them and we would have gained a lot by waiting for the end of the second session and mature this kind of subject in a spirit of synodality.”
“Personally, I think that what surprised and shocked us the most was the way in which the text was published,” Ambongo said. “When you read the content of the document, there’s no revolution because we do bless people. We bless everyone, we even bless animals, we bless cars. Sometimes I even bless pens students use.”
“Blessings can be given to anyone,” he continued. “This means that what caused the problem wasn’t the blessing, because we already give blessings. What came as a bit of a shock, and I think we should have prepared public opinion a little better during the synod, was the blessing of the homosexual couples.”
The Congolese cardinal, who has been a member of Pope Francis’ Council of Cardinals since his appointment in October 2020 and reappointment in March 2023, further said: “I believe that if we had consulted beforehand, if we had analyzed Fiducia Supplicans in the spirit of synodality, perhaps we could have presented it in a different form and with a different tone, taking into account the sensitivities of others.”
Following conflicting reactions to Fiducia Supplicans, the prefect of the DDF, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, called upon each bishop to “make that discernment” on its implementation.
In a five-page press release on Jan. 4, the DDF provided clarification on Fiducia Supplicans, writing that its implementation will depend “on local contexts and the discernment of each diocesan bishop with his diocese.”
In Africa, Catholic bishops issued a “consolidated summary” of their responses against the possibility of blessing couples as suggested in Fiducia Supplicans.
In their five-page response to Fiducia Supplicans, SECAM members said they “do not consider it appropriate for Africa to bless homosexual unions or same-sex couples because, in our context, this would cause confusion and would be in direct contradiction to the cultural ethos of African communities.”
The Catholic bishops said the “spontaneous” and nonliturgical blessings, which Fiducia Supplicans proposes, “cannot be carried out in Africa without” causing “scandals.”
In the March 17 interview, Ambongo said that since the issuing of the Jan. 11 SECAM statement, there is “peace and tranquility” on the continent.
“Since then, we no longer speak of Fiducia Supplicans in terms of virulent opposition to Rome or the Holy Father,” he said.
“The Church on the continent has a very clear stance,” he continued. “We welcome homosexuals as human beings, as sons and daughters of God, we don’t reject them, but we don’t assume that this sexual orientation is the one we can teach our children.”
This article was originally published by ACI Africa, CNA’s news partner in Africa, and has been adapted by CNA.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
We read: “The Catholic bishops [across Africa] said the ‘spontaneous’ and nonliturgical blessings, which Fiducia Supplicans proposes, ‘cannot be carried out in Africa without’ causing ‘scandals’.” Nor anywhere else without also “causing ‘scandals’….” Nor is it reducible to some “different form and with a different tone, taking into account the sensitivities of others.”
YES, to compassion and sensitivity, but not without truth, nor likely to be handled well in a “spirit of synodality,” either. When such synods seem to supersede even the Second Vatican Council which maintained that, “In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience [….] the Council wishes to recall first of all the permanent binding force of universal natural law [!] and its all-embracing principles” (Gaudium et Spes, nn. 16, 79).
Also recalling, here, the pushback against ST. ATHANASIUS, who was born at least in Africa (Alexandria)! Amidst earlier renditions of turmoil betwixt state and Church—Athanasius was exiled five times (like Burke and Ganswein!). AND, as for the current “synods,” we might wonder whether in A.D. 2025 even the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) will survive as a guardian of received truth against Arian reductionism? Or, whether it will be cross-dressed as a more fluid sort of process thingy, instead of standing together, “walking together” in step with Fiducia Supplicans?
That’s a QUESTION asked on this website nearly two years ago—too turgidly—by yours truly. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/10/18/opinion-yesterdays-council-of-nicaea-and-todays-synodism/ Today, instead of Nicaea and the serpentine redefinition of the Triune One, the mutant redefinition is of Man himself, and the meaning of “synod, (non-liturgical!) blessing” of “irregular couples,” and even “scandal.”
_________________________________________________
Said HUMPTY DUMPTY: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
So, standing with the African bishops: YES indeed, it really is about “cultural colonization,” and “scandal,” and even whether “synods” can peripheralize Church councils.
Take that, Vatican cultural oppressors!
Let Africa stay free to be! Stop the appropriation!
You’ve descended into the political realm.
Far worse that Western Cultural Imperialism. Plain and simple — a demonic betrayal of the Faith by those ordained to maintain it.
What should be the consequence for such men?
I disagree with the Cardinal that the Pope’s paper represents “practices that are considered normal in the West”. The truth is, this stuff is considered “normal” by only a relatively small number of westerners. Sadly, they are the westerners who control our political parties, our media, and our educational institutions, which then go about foisting laws and media stories on the rest of us. Laws are then passed which make it almost impossible for others to oppose them without risking personal cancellation, social ostracism, and loss of employment. The Cardinal hits the nail on the head with the last paragraph of his essay here.
It’s very hard to say what is “normal” in the “West” these days. Over the past two decades, I have taught a STEM subject at small, state universities in red states, and there are plenty of sane students mostly keeping their heads down, but an increasingly large number have been thoroughly deceived by the media and their K-12 educations. It’s much the same with faculty, which in no small part is why I am anonymous here (though my colleagues in my department must surely have a pretty good idea of my thoughts). Let’s just say that when the university sends out a “voluntary and anonymous” survey of faculty attitudes towards the LGBTQ movement — which has indeed happened — I immediately delete the email. I will not lie, but I cannot take the risk that it is a trap. There are surely many others in the same situation, so the results of such surveys are meaningless; it is impossible to know what is typical (“normal” being the wrong word here).
I suspect, but cannot prove, that the same is true all over, but the ascendancy of perversion varies wildly from place to place. We have to remember, though, that both large US parties believe — and they have numbers to support the belief — that most of society is so stupid and docile that they will vote for whatever candidate they see most on TV or hear most on the radio; that is why “campaign financing” is such a big issue. I dare say that only a small percentage are strongly pro-“gay rights”, and only a small percentage are committedly against them, while a comfortable majority turn to sitcoms, movies, and other entertainment to tell them what they should believe from day to day.
All of which is a long-winded way of saying that it is hard to know what the majority of people really think today, let alone what they will think tomorrow, but perverse thinking is more common than you seem to think.
I am sorry to hear that you need to keep your opinions to yourself and suppress your personal opinions at the school at which you teach. Although given the vicious nature of the left, it is understandable. That is the sort of thing we used to believe would only happen in a communist style dictatorship. Normal people ( which I believe IS the correct term) can do little when overwhelmed by voters whose votes are bought with taxpayer funds. Paying off student loans for example. What more obvious vote buying scheme can you imagine? And how many students do you imagine would have the intellect and spine to vote against it because it is bad for the country and grossly unfair to those who did in fact pay off their own loans, or those who decided it was too hard to manage and thus bypassed a college education? This is all part and parcel of the self absorbed selfishness which grips our culture. A failure on the part of parents, general society and the church which has failed to communicate traditional values, possibly in a vain hope of becoming more popular or relevant. I think that most people are NOT happy with things as they are but its been made too clear that speaking up can cost you your job and more. As you yourself tacitly admit. I dont really think perversion is more common. I think it knows it can now be more open, and show itself in the most ugly and shrill way with our amoral politicians lauding them as if their perversion is an accomplishment. Hence you have biological men taking over womens sports and sniffing around womens locker rooms. And intellectually vacant judges who say that is all ok. More people need to find the courage to take a stand and oppose the nutty things which are parading as normal, but clearly are not.Start with being very careful which party you vote for. As far as I can see, the party in chief support of transgenderism, lawfare, broken borders, defund the police, DEI, Woke ideology,and a broken economy is the democrats. Not only do they support an open border and oppose election ID requirements, they take the states which try to enact such laws TO COURT!!!. Which tells you everything about the democrats you need to know. Until people smarten up about how they vote, nothing will improve.
Now the DDF says that FS’s “implementation will depend on local contexts and the discernment of each diocesan bishop with his diocese.” Let me get this right. Couples living in an inherently sinful situation in Diocese A may receive a blessing, but couples living in the exact same situation in Diocese B may not. . . . I thought “Catholic” meant “universal.”
You are right, and those “excuses” like “it is not our cultural tradition” or “it is not our (Eastern) Canon hence not applicable to us” are paving the way to an almost universal acceptance of ‘FS’ (pun intended).
One of the four “marks” of the Church i.e. its catholicity.
The minds of Francis and his lieutenant has been more relativistic than Marx, Hegel, and Engels combined. Within the Church, they make the process theologians of the seventies appear conservative. They believe even God has to accommodate the mood not only of the age, but the mood of the moment, whenever and wherever.
A reference to “cultural colonization” (or whatever) minimizes the issue of “blessing of homosexual couples”. This issue is about what God considers to be good (and blesses) i.e. beyond any cultural tradition. It is in fact goes back to the Creation, “male and female He created them”. A blessing of the homosexual COUPLE (not separate homosexual individuals but a couple) symbolically blows off the very beginning of our civilization. Or better to say it reverses it.
The question arises, why and who needs that if the Church has had a pastoral way of dealing with homosexual people just as with any other? A pastoral way is compassionate, private and tailored to an individual’s needs. I conclude it is simply about the will to call a deviation from a biological norm a norm, an illness – health. That is by the way an anti-creation. God after completing His work looked at His Creation and saw that it was very good. That was a creation before the fall. Now some dudes, in a perfect mirror reflection of Genesis (left is right, right is left) look at the sins and illnesses and say “it is very good”.
The problem with Sfiducia Supplicans is that it is not Christian. It seeks to bless sin. Christ was crucified for sin.
The problem with Cardinal Ambongo’s carve out for Africa is that it is not Catholic. “Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.” (John 17:11). More, it implies that Africa is culturally prepared to accept heterosexual “blessings” of couples in irregular relationships, like concubinage and polygamy.
Honestly, it’s also impossible not to see this as vilely racist — an implication being that Africans are not far enough up the evolutionary ladder to see the wisdom of this move from the Vatican. It will never be stated so bluntly, but that’s what happens when one tries to rule with winks and nudges.
Doubt the racism was intentional, more likely just stupidity and ill thought out. We must be careful not to read everything through colored lenses it can become very dangerous and divisive.
Synod on Synodality is IMO nothing more than a ruse to “bring more people who do not believe in the Truth of Catholic teaching, its foundation, Commandments, Tenets” but rather, want to open the Church’s teaching to secular and “untruthful” demands. The intent is out in the open for anyone to see, it is to placate and bow down to demands of those who do not believe in Truth but rather, want it their way whether it is the changing of the Sacraments, allowing marriage of LGBQT+, married and women priests, approving of LGBQT++ life-style as “unsinful”, etc etc.. The Synod is a shame IMO and though I pray not one, will result in a further split Church; those of Truth splitting off while those who do not believe but want it “their way and not God’s way” another catholic church. Pope Benedict’s prophecy (though he likely did not consider it such) that the Church will become smaller and stronger” will in fact come to pass sooner rather than later.
JMJ. They’re Mentally Ill. The blessing isn’t meant to cure them as blessings of the Sick are. This blessing is meant to be a blessing of approval of Sin. A blessing of acceptance of Evil. It’s against Natural Law. Against the Gospel. St. Paul warns us in Galatians 1: 1-10 that if anyone preaches a Gospel than the Gospel we preach, let him be Anathema. I’m a simple 73 year old cradle Catholic, & never have I heard or read such a Teaching, Pastoral or not. All this is just another proof of Satan’s entering the Catholic Church which he’s been trying to since Our Lord built it. I just heard that Pope Francis wrote a book. Has ever written a book before? If so how many? It seems this book is about himself. Not Jesus. Pope’s before him wrote books as well. They’re about Jesus.
Let me ask a hypothetical.
A military unit has a Catholic chaplain. This unit is about to be deployed in an action which fails the Just War criteria as described in CCC 2309. Is it acceptable for the chaplain to bless them as a unit, or must he take pains to clarify that he is only blessing them as individuals?
To make this more specific, let us assume the unit is composed entirely of volunteers — not draftees — and that they understood when they volunteered that missions of this kind might be assigned to them.
Let us also assume that their government is not by a king claiming divine right, nor by totalitarian dictator, but is some kind of democracy, so that prudential decisions ultimately devolve to the consent and feedback from the citizenry. The chaplain is a citizen, and the question is asked of a hypothetical citizen.
There’s a world of difference between blessing a mission and blessing a person. If a mission is evil, it can never be blessed. If a person is engaged in an evil mission, a blessing for a conversion of the individual’s heart can be given. If the Nazis had Catholic chaplains embedded in their war effort during WWII, then that war effort could not be blessed as it was wholly unjust. Individual Nazi soldiers who were Catholic could be given a blessing for a conversion of the mind and heart to that of Christ’s.
No Catholic cleric can ever grant a blessing upon a matter that is gravely sinful. To call on God, using His name, to bless some evil is a sacrilege and is using God’s name in vain. It is a sin against the 2nd Commandment.
After all, this rupture or kerfuffle (choose one) is only about semantics or only bad spelling!
Cardinal Fernandez, fer example, in an early book explained it all thusly: “eroticism = ecstasy = mysticism”! And, likewise, now we find that “copulation” and “couple-elation” are interchangeable and equally blessed/sorta-blessed by God.
Three other points:
FIRST, as for the Nazi situation, the question has long been asked why Hitler was never excommunicated. He was baptized into the Catholic Church, and even confirmed (1904). From my patchy reading (no historian am I), I’ve read that he was not excommunicated because he was already (!) automatically excommunicated for marrying outside the Church (part of Canon Law in those days).
SECOND, then the question arises, why were the Catholic German soldiers not instructed by the Church that their cause was unjust–that they should stand down. About this, I once read, somewhere, that the Church discerned against causing a “crisis of conscience.” Would like to hear more about this, or whatever.
THIRD, it also seems that when sexual moral theology is shelved or evaded in more recent decades, then most anything absorbed from the prevailing culture can escalate into such a crisis of conscience. That is, for example, now with private LGBTQ-ism very much out of the closet, aggressively public, and even validated under the secular/statist redefinition of “marriage” …what does one do with all these misled children of God, mostly victimized, or groomed, or absorbed into the homosexual lifestyle? Redefine “blessing”? Enlist a clericalist word merchant, or maybe a bunch of “experts,” and then defer to a redefined “synodal” process?
At this juncture, we either play taps with such an uncertain trumpet, or not. Surely compassion, but also with the “backwardist” biblical refrains still wafting forward to renew the morally barren landscape: “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever” (Heb 13:8), and “be prepared to preach the Word, in season and out of season” (2 Tim 4:2).
“There’s a world of difference between blessing a mission and blessing a person.” There is, isn’t there? Yet I wonder if a country near you might have had a group assembled strictly for the purpose of an objectively evil act blessed by a Catholic chaplain. Maybe, maybe not, but I wonder.
The key here is that we have to hold sins which we find actually pretty tempting to the same standard as those we find completely unappealing; we must hold them to God’s standard.
That might also mean forgoing “prayer breakfasts” with notorious abortion supporters; those might not exactly be blessings, but they are an explicit, and a questsionable, acceptance. It might mean reacting as harshly to a statue of Ganesha as to a statue of Baphomet, recognizing that the former actually ensnares more souls.
Hopefully this synodality process will be buried with this Pope and the Church will be able to stabilize and move on. 😇
The minds of Francis and his lieutenant have been more relativistic than Marx, Hegel, and Engels combined. Within the Church, they make the process theologians of the seventies appear conservative. They believe even God has to accommodate the mood not only of the age, but the mood of the moment, whenever and wherever.