Roma Locuta Est

January 5, 2024 (Steven O’Reilly) – On December 18, 2023, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith published the controversial Declaration Fiducia Supplicans. While claiming not to allow the blessing of same-sex unions or relationships, the document contradicted itself in allowing the blessing of same-sex “couples” as same-sex couples (see my prior article, Will Fiducia Supplicans Backfire on Pope Francis?).

At the time, the author of this nonsense, Cardinal Fernandez, in the same document, said that the DDF would not say anything more on the question (emphasis added):

“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.”

The confident assurances of the Cardinal aside, after a firestorm reaction from around the world directed at the document, the DDF found it necessary to release a ‘clarifying’ statement in the form of a press release (see Dicastery for Doctrine of the Faith clarifies application of ‘Fiducia supplicans’). However, the five page document amounts to little more than an exercise in saying something like “confusion, what confusion? We didn’t cause any confusion — so sit down, and shut up about it, already.”

This second document, like the first, goes to pains to say their is no change to Catholic teaching on marriage.  However, that is not the point. The claim the “teaching on marriage is the same” is just a shiny object intended to distract one from what is really going on. A growing number of Catholic bishops, priests, and laity have seen through this charade.  If one is blessing a same-sex couple as a same-sex couple, one is in fact blessing the same-sex relationship.

There have already been many fine analyses of Fiducia Supplicans, mostly focused on FS paragraph 31,  so there is no need to rehash all its problems again here.  I would just quickly point out what I noted in  my prior article (see Will Fiducia Supplicans Backfire on Pope Francis?) with regard to paragraph 38 wherein it is said, in part:

“In a brief prayer preceding this spontaneous blessing, the ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance—but also God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely.”

Fiducia Supplicans, 38

As I observed in my prior article, Fiducia Supplicans suggests that a “brief prayer” might ask God to grant the same-sex individuals “peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance—but also God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely.”  Well a “brief” prayer that even says this much will undoubtedly lead a same-sex couple, and anyone witnessing the blessing, to believe that God and His Church approve of their relationship, and are blessing it!  A spirit of “patience“, “dialogue“, and “mutual assistance” are all elements associated with a marital relationship between a man and a woman. How can anyone think that the Church is not blessing the same-sex relationship if such language is used, as suggested by FS 38?

Furthermore, as I went on to observe, prior DDF guidance said the presence of “positive elements” in such irregular relationships are not enough to justify a blessing (emphasis added):

“The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan.”

(Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium regarding the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex, March 15, 2021)

Above, the DDF in 2021 stated the presence in same sex relationships of “positive elements…cannot justify these relationship and render them legitimate objects of eccesial blessings, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan.”  Note, the blessing is impossible “since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan.” Yet, two years later, Fiducia Supplicans suggests a prayer for God’s aid for these seemingly “positive elements” of a relationship, e.g., “peace”, “health”, “spirit of patience”, “dialogue,” and “mutual assistance.”  And as the same DDF guidance of 2021 stated, God “does not and cannot bless sin.”

It is inescapable that there is a contradiction both within Fiducia Supplicans, as well as between it and prior DDF guidance, and Church practice.

Fiducia Supplicans or Suppli-can’t?

Soon upon the release of FS, I published an article, its title in the form of a question: Will Fiducia Supplicans Backfire on Pope Francis?  The answer was not long in coming.  Fiducia Supplicans has backfired on Pope Francis. Folks following the controversy well know this. Negative or lukewarm reactions have come from many quarters. There is no resounding acceptance of it.

As of December 29, 2023, the Catholic Herald had been keeping a list of negative reactions, which included statements from the following countries: “Ukraine, Brazil, Kenya, Rwanda, Zambia, Cameroon, Malawi, Nigeria, Angola, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Sao Tome and Principe, and Kazakhstan” (Catholic Herald; Rift widens over gay blessings as Hungarian bishops reject them but Indian cardinal says yes).

The bishops of Kazakstan were the first to have rejected the document (see HERE).  Archbishop Peta and Bishop Schneider of St. Mary of Astana even stated that Francis, in approving this document, “does not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel” (see Gal. 2:14).”  The bishops of Africa have been the most decisive as a group thus far. In Malawi, as reported by the Pillar, 9 of 12 bishops in the country signed a statement declaring blessings of “same-sex unions of any kind, are not permitted in Malawi.”  The Zambian bishops in their statement conclude (emphasis added):

“In order to avoid any pastoral confusion and ambiguity as well as not to break the law of our country which forbids same-sex unions and activities, and while listening to our cultural heritage which does not accept same-sex relationships, the Conference guides that the Declaration from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith of December 18th, 2023 concerning the blessing of same-sex couples be taken as for further reflection and not for implementation in Zambia.”  (see HERE).

Bishops in Ivory Coast took a similar stance, asking that priests “refrain from blessings of same-sex couples and couples in an irregular situation.” (see HERE). The Bishops of Togo also asked priests to refrains from such blessings. Perhaps in unintentional, but somewhat cheeky move, they cited Pope Francis from a Dubium response of July 11, 2023 to reject the blessings just approved by Francis through the DDF’s Fiducia Supplicans. The bishops of Togo write (emphasis added):

“In his reply to the Dubia of Two Cardinals on July 11, 2023, Pope Francis writes: “Rites and prayers are inadmissible which could cause confusion between that which constitutes marriage, namely ‘an exclusive, stable and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the procreation of children’ and that which contradicts it.” For this reason, as regards the blessing of homosexual couples, the bishops of Togo direct priests to refrain from doing this.”

Source:  HERE

Reactions by other bishops and bishop conferences across Africa are quite similar. For example, a bishop in Kenya stated “we categorically refute same-sex blessings, and we shall never allow it to take place in our Churches” (see HERE).  A bishop emeritus, Cardinal Onaiyekan of Nigeria stated “we cannot bless sin” (see video HERE;beginning c. 11:30).

But the negative reactions are found elsewhere, outside of Africa. The Hungarian bishops issued a statement rejecting joint blessings of couples (see HERE). The Ukrainian bishops also rejected it, noting the ambiguities of FS, and the lack of a call to conversion with regard to irregular “couples” (see HERE). The bishops of Poland have rejected such blessings (see HERE).  In Brazil, a bishop announced FS will not be implemented in his diocese (see HERE). Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco said that priests can deny such blessings (see HERE).  In Peru, a bishop has clearly told his priests: “I admonish the priests of the Prelature of Moyobamba not to carry out any form of blessing for couples in an irregular situation or for same-sex couples” (see HERE).  So, too, a Spanish bishop opposes it, calling FS ‘a mistake’ (see HERE). In France, a bishop instructed his priests to give individual blessings, stating: “...if people ask, to give them a blessing, provided that it is to each person individually, calling them to conversion and inviting them to ask for the help of the grace that the Lord grants to all those who ask him to conform their lives to the Will of God.”(see HERE).

In addition to the above sampling of reactions from bishops and bishops’ conferences, priests have also entered the fray. The British Association of Priests, about 500 strong according to the site, issued a statement on Fiducia Supplicans.  Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register quotes BAP’s statement in part (emphasis added):

“We believe that genuine charity always follows true doctrine and that such blessings would work against the legitimate care a priest owes to his flock,” the confraternity said. Noting Pope Francis’ call for parrhesia (frankness), the statement says that “from our own experience as pastors we conclude that such blessings are pastorally and practically inadmissible.”

(Source: Edward Pentin, National Catholic Register, British Association of Priests Expresses Grave Concern About ‘Fiducia Supplicans’; see also the Catholic Herald for the full text of the BAP statement, HERE)

Similarly, the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy (USA) issued a statement on Fiducia Supplicans, “uniting” its concerns with those “of our brethren  British Confraternity of Catholic Clergy“; saying in part (emphasis added):

“Likewise, as we cannot bless abortions, pornography, marital infidelity, child abuse, terrorism, and all grave evils (like fornication and adultery), we must also avoid conflating immoral things with those who commit them. Prudence requires us to avoid sending the wrong message and. Moral truth is as precious as dogmatic truth. Yes, the Church has not changed her perennial teaching on human sexuality and the sanctity of marriage, but we should neither muddy the waters, either. Admonishing sinners is still a work of mercy and obscuring their moral vision is not; even if it is called a ‘blessing.’”

(Source: Statement of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy (USA) Regarding the Recent Declaration Fiducia Supplicans)

And, then, to round out a recap of this sampling of reactions, a group of several Spanish priests have launched a petition drive calling for Fiducia Supplicans “to be withdrawn” (see HERE).  As of this writing, the petition has nearly 5,800 signees, priests and laity; growing by over 1,500 from when I first checked the site earlier today.

The Reaction: Surprising?

I had two reactions to the release of Fiducia Supplicans.  One reaction is the horror all faithful Catholics felt — the great horror that the pope, through the DDF, would allow blessings of same-sex unions under the guise of blessing only the same-sex “couple” as a same-sex “couple.” But, I was not surprised Pope Francis allowed this.  Things appeared to be headed in this direction for some time given the Pope’s failure to rein in the German synodal way, his coziness with the likes of Fr. James Martin, SJ, etc.

The other reaction I had was an immediate expectation there would be a rejection of the Fiducia Supplicans to a degree greater than we have seen before. As I opined in my last article (see HERE), unlike other controversial documents, such as Traditiones Custodes, Fiducia Supplicans would confront bishops with problems beyond just a ‘small’ TLM community in their dioceses.

With FS, bishops would undoubtedly be inundated with many “irregular couples” — divorced and remarried couples, and same-sex couples — across most if not all parishes in their dioceses, demanding these blessings. But with this flood of demands, the bishops will also be confronted at the same time with the reality that a significant number of their priests will absolutely refuse to provide any such blessings.

But that is only part of a bishop’s problems. Up until now, the majority of the Catholic faithful have been generally unaware of the many controversies swirling around the pontificate of Pope Francis, such as Amoris Laetitia and Traditiones Custodes.  However, this situation will certainly come quickly to an end with FS, as Catholics come face to face with the reality that homosexual and other irregular relationships will be blessed in their parishes and dioceses, by their priests and bishops. Bishops will quickly be confronted by rebellious priests, and irate parishioners — many of whom will quit donating to the diocese.  Even those bishops — who to their shame are inherently averse to any confrontation or controversy — will see their hand forced.  Either they will rejecting FS outright, or decide (silently) not to enforce it (in order to avoid diocesan turmoil).

So, in the above sense, the reactions we have seen around the globe have not surprised me. However, there is one thing that surprised me. What has surprised me is that it took a controversy over the blessing of irregular “couples” to bring about this reaction for the first time. I was surprised that Fiducia Supplicans produced this extensive, horrified reaction amongst so many of the faithful, laity, priests, bishops and cardinals; while Amoris Laetitia was met, for the most, part by relative silence.

Yes, Fiducia Supplicans‘ allowance of blessings of same-sex and other irregular “couples” is horrific, because “God does not bless sin.”  But, as bad as that truly is, consider that Amoris Laetitia allows adulterous individual and “couples” to receive the Body and Body of Our Lord in Holy Communion — which is a far more grave, and horrendous sacrilege!

What can orthodox Catholic Cardinals and Bishops do?

Amoris Laetitia and Fiducia Supplicans have their unique problems (which are not the subject of this article) but they also share some similarities. Both documents profess that the perennial doctrine remains the same while at the same time advocating a change in praxis that contradicts it (e.g., compare Amoris Laetitia to Familiaris Consortio 84). Though Amoris Laetitia deals with sacraments (communion and confession), and Fiducia Supplicans with a sacramental (i.e., blessings); there are similarities in the faulty logic, theology, and goals that underly both, which seek to justify giving what is holy to those in an objective state of grave sin with respect to irregular relationships. Here then, at its core, is a shared error of both.

So, if there are commons problems, why the great public reaction among many bishops to Fiducia Supplicans now, and not Amoris Laetitia before? It is hard to say. My preliminary hypothesis is that the decidedly negative reaction to Fiducia Supplicans is an obvious sign that Amoris Laetitia has never been accepted, or enforced by many Catholic bishops. Why do I say this?  Because had Amoris Laetitia been widely accepted and enforced before now, Fiducia Supplicans would not have received the reaction it has.

Thus, the ‘ecclesial’, soft underbelly of Amoris Laetitia has now been exposed for all to see — if only those who could do something about it, recognize the moment. This is why I believe, in part at least, the DDF came out with a clarification of Fiducia Supplicans which they had previously said would not come. That is, Pope Francis and the DDF need to push back on the growing opposition to Fiducia Supplicans because it ultimately threatens “old” projects like Amoris Laetitia, but also the next project of Pope Francis which relies on the same template as AL and FS.  [NB: Here I mean the possibility of female “deacons”, which Pope Francis appears to favor. The template of which I speak is to make the claim, as with AL and FS, the perennial doctrine of the Church remains the same, in this case the all-male priesthood, while at the same time subverting it by allowing non-ordained, but ‘blessed’ female ‘ministers’ to serve in all ‘deacon-like’ functions, especially giving homilies and assisting at mass].

Regardless, I do see an opportunity here. Cardinal Burke’s efforts since 2016 to issue a ‘formal correction‘ of Pope Francis with regard to Amoris Laetitia were hampered by a lack of support amongst his fellow cardinals. It is easy to understand, and even sympathize with the calculation that suggested caution. For example, unfortunately, there was no great outcry over Amoris Laetitia. The vast majority of cardinals and bishops remained silent, and would not likely sign on to so bold an effort as a “formal correction” of a Roman Pontiff.

However, that was then. Today we live in a different moment, as the reactions of cardinals and bishops over the last couple of weeks has demonstrated. The current controversy has undoubtedly exposed for more bishops, priests, and laity throughout the world the essential deficiencies and similarities of Fiducia Supplicans and Amoris Laetitia; manifesting for all the place, and dangers these documents pose in the debate over the Church’s doctrine and discipline with respect to irregular “couples,” who living in an objective state of sin, wish to remain as irregular “couples” — and thus, continuing to live in an objective state of sin.

Thus, it seems to me the uproar over Fiducia Supplicans may be a decisive moment when a significant number of cardinals and bishops could pull together — throughout the world — to jointly formulate and sign a ‘formal correction‘ of Pope Francis. This ‘formal correction’ should address both the unique, and shared flaws, and contradictions of both Amoris Laetitia and Fiducia Supplicans with respect to the perennial doctrine and practice of the Church.

The brave bishops and cardinals I cited earlier in this article, and others like them, did not acquiesce to Fiducia Supplicans.  They knew their duty, and did it.  But now, the DDF, as its latest “clarification” demonstrates, has not only not backed down, but it has double downed on Fiducia Supplicans, and blessings for same-sex, and other irregular “couples.” What are these brave cardinals and bishops to do now?

The time of the Dubia is now past (see HERE, and HERE). Rather, it seems to this wee, humble blog writer, that this is the moment of decision: a ‘formal correction’ can no longer be avoided, or deferred to some future point in time.  These brave bishops of which I spoke, and others out there yet unknown to us, should keep in mind St. Paul’s words to Timothy (emphasis added):

I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil thy ministry. Be sober. (2 Timothy 4: 1-5)

This is a command from the Lord, through St. Paul.  Cardinals and bishops, “preach the word…reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine.”  Yes, it may seem a difficult, and even an impossible task demanded of you by the Lord, and your calling and office as bishops — as it means rebuking a Roman Pontiff.  However, remember that “…God commands not impossibilities, but, by commanding, both admonishes thee to do what thou are able, and to pray for what thou art not able (to do), and aids thee that thou mayest be able…“[1].  Thus, what you bishops and cardinals are able to do is to issue a “formal correction”, and to pray for what you are not able to do, i.e., thereby leaving Pope Francis to God’s providence.  Issuing a formal correction is what you can do.  All else leave to God.

Now, of course, all the above is gratuitous, non-sought-after advice from a lowly layman. But it is my hope and prayer that, perhaps, at this moment as I write this, that cardinals (e.g., Burke, Brandmuller, Muller, Sarah, etc), and bishops who have had concerns over Amoris Laetitia are now reaching out to, and beginning to communicate and network with their fellow bishops and priests in Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, and Latin America who are now on record against Fiducia Supplicans. What a powerful example, and statement of Faith it would be if these cardinals and bishops, together, formulated a formal correction on Amoris Laetitia/Fiducia Supplicans, and by it, ‘withstood Peter to his face because he was to be blamed’ (Galatians 2:11).

Let us pray for Pope Francis that he remembers the Lord’s words to Peter: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren” (Luke 22:31-32).

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions.  He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com  or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on GETTR, TruthSocial, or Gab: @StevenOReilly).

Notes:

1.  (Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter XI).