UPDATES BELOW: 21 Dec ’23 – 12:52
BTW… you know what the next step is, right? Already there?
Change the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
ORIGINALLY Published on: Dec 20, 2023
One online priest, a homosexualist, said:
“As a priest I look forward to blessing same-sex couples, sharing with them the graces that God desires for everyone, something I’ve waited years to do.”
I’ll just bet you waited. Sure, you did.
The problem with a statement like this is that, if a person in disposed to receive them, all persons can receive the graces that God desires to give. Also God does not desire to give the same graces to everyone. Some yes, such as sanctifying grace, of course. Some, yes, prevenient graces, of course.
He also wrote:
“Be wary of the “Nothing has changed” response to today’s news. It’s a significant change. In short, yesterday, as a priest, I was forbidden to bless same-sex couples at all. Today, with some limitations, I can.”
Now what?
Hey look! A spontaneous blessing! With a spontaneous NY Times photographer who was spontaneously hanging out!
Exactly. The document is a classic bit of sentimental, sophistic sleight-of-hand, making distinctions on paper that will not hold up, of course, on the ground. If you doubt that, let me know when this “spontaneous” @nytimes blessing by @JamesMartinSJ is addressed by the Vatican. https://t.co/rAeV7V9rqg pic.twitter.com/9u0wi7rLlE
— Carl E. Olson (@carleolson) December 20, 2023
Meanwhile, the Bishops of Malawi and Zambia (at least) [UPDATE – and Ukrainians and Polish] have prohibited priests from giving blessings to “couples”. The Archbishop of Astana, Kazakhstan and Bp. Schneider issued a letter which is strongly against this move.
Also, this is an astute observation on the part of an acquaintance of mine. I spotted this the instant I heard about the document: all blessings are, in a sense, liturgical. However the new document says the blessings of “couples” aren’t to be liturgical.
So, I guess they aren’t to be given?
Again, this is *amazing* that the DDF has rolled back a major achievement of the 20th century liturgical reform, the understanding blessings as liturgical. From the general instruction of the book of blessings: https://t.co/rkjf30loau pic.twitter.com/HjkxN4XCJ6
— Samuel J. Howard (@Jahaza) December 20, 2023
I dislike the Book of Blessings, which is ironically bereft of blessings. The point is that a priestly blessing, even a simple one, has a liturgical character.
Moreover,…
For those who dispute Dan Hitchens’ claim that there is a contradiction between the two documents, here it is:
2021: “It is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage… as is the case of the… https://t.co/s7tjoE5UgT
— Edward Feser (@FeserEdward) December 20, 2023
And then…
Exactly
The Holy Father and +Fernandez put priests in an impossible position.
I’ve talked to three or four clergy today who already were fielding calls from couples in irregular marriages and/or gay couples to set up their blessing.
So, we end up being called reactionary… https://t.co/T3o1eKvW77— Fr. Joseph Krupp (@Joeinblack) December 20, 2023
Of course the moderation queue is ON and I will be picky.
QUAERITUR:
Will there be a Latin text of “Fiducia supplicans”? There’s a title!
UPDATES 21 Dec ’23:
Here’s something from a Cardinal who defended Amoris… which lead to Fiducia.
The “Fiducia Supplicans” debate lacks one essential word. Yet that word was the first on Jesus’ lips when he delivered his very first teaching: “Repent & Believe in the Gospel!” Thereafter he selects two fishermen Simon & Andrew in order to make them fishers of men!
— Cardinal Napier (@CardinalNapier) December 21, 2023
Meanwhile, Fr. Thomas Weinandy, theologian of note but seemingly an enemy of traditional liturgy … so, he is NOT one of those American trads that Rome seems to blame everything on… and neither are the bishops conferences of MALAWI or NIGERIA or ZAMBIA…
At The Catholic Thing, this is pretty hard core…
[…]
The pope or a bishop maybe, by virtue of his office, a member of the magisterium, but his teaching, if it contradicts the received previous magisterial teaching, is not magisterial. Such false teaching simply fails to meet the necessary criteria. It possesses no ecclesial authoritative credentials. Rather, it is simply an ambiguous or flawed statement that attempts or pretends to be magisterial, when it’s not.
Second, to bless couples in irregular marriages or same-sex couples without giving the impression that the Church is not validating their sexual activity is a charade. All those present at such blessings know, without a doubt, that such relationships are sexual in nature. No one is fooled. Actually, they are rejoicing that such sexual relations are being blessed. That’s the point of these blessings. It is not their sexual abstinence being blessed, but their sexual indulgence.
Third, while couples in irregular marriages and same-sex couples can be blessed, what cannot be blessed, and so validated, is the sin in which they are engaged. It is impossible to bless an immoral act, and to attempt to do so is blasphemy, for one is asking the all-holy God to do something that is contrary to his nature — the sanctioning of sin. Moreover, to bless irregular marriages and same-sex couples, for the purposes of authenticating their sexual activity, is an affront to and a demeaning of the sacrament of marriage itself. Such blessings undermine the dignity of marriage — a sacramental sign of the indissoluble union between Christ and his Church.
[…]
At The Pillar I read a piece by former Prefect of the CDF – who knows more than his prayers – Gerhard Card. Müller. The old phrase is “Qui distinguit bene docet… He teaches well who makes distinctions”. Müller breaks blessings down into three categories, two which are consistent with Catholic teaching and practice and one which has been invented from whole cloth (guess which kind). He demonstrates that FS is self-contradictory.
[…]
With the Declaration Fiducia supplicans (FS) on the Pastoral Significance of Blessings, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) has made an affirmation that has no precedent in the teaching of the Catholic Church. In fact, this document affirms that it is possible for a priest to bless (not liturgically, but privately) couples who live in a sexual relationship outside of marriage, including same-sex couples. The many questions raised by bishops, priests, and laity in response to these statements deserve a clear and unequivocal response.
Does this statement not clearly contradict Catholic teaching? Are the faithful obliged to accept this new teaching? May the priest perform such new practices that have just been invented? And can the diocesan bishop forbid them if they were to take place in his diocese? To answer these questions, let us see what exactly the document teaches and what arguments it relies on.
The document, which was neither discussed nor approved by the General Assembly of Cardinals and Bishops of this Dicastery, acknowledges that the hypothesis (or teaching?) it proposes is new and that it is based primarily on the pastoral magisterium of Pope Francis.
[…]
The last statement is accurate. Remember Fernandez stating something about the primacy of the “magisterium of Francis”?
Here are the footnotes of FS.
I note that the footnotes cite De Benedictionibus (the infamous “Book of Blessings” – which has only one prayer that bless things because the idea was to destroy the categories of invocative and constitutive) says that all blessings are “liturgical” and yet FS says that whatever it is that is to be imparted is not to be “liturgical.
The 500 strong Confraternity of Catholic Clergy in England and Wales put this out.
By contrast, sort of… Bp. Barron of Winona-Rochester in my native Minnesota…
FS is “congruent with the the pastoral instincts of Pope Francis”. Okay. Very deft. But is it congruent with Catholic teaching and perennial practice? There ought to be someone nearby every Pope who says, “Ummm… we need to think this through.” I wonder what role the official “Papal Theologian” had… has had… has had for a while.
Again in my native Minnesota, Bp. Cozzens (who was in seminary behind me) of Crookston wrote HERE:
[…]
This blessing is not for people seeking a legitimation of same sex union but for those seeking to live better: “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).
[…]
And of course, as the Vatican made clear, “Any blessing will be an opportunity for a renewed proclamation of the kerygma, an invitation to draw ever closer to the love of Christ” (FS, 44). Thus, when people come to the Church seeking her blessing let us also proclaim to them the saving love of Jesus found through repentance for all of us who are sinners.
[…]
With due respect to His Excellency, I don’t think the Vatican made this issue clear. At least that statement ends with the point that there must be repentance.
Archbp. Viganò... well… “servants of Satan”… “delirious Declaration”… “abomination of desolation”… you get the drift. I think that’s a “No” vote for FS.
A priest of the Companions of Christ, present on the interwebs, has a couple of self-apologetic videos about FS and his intention to … well… bless same-sex couples. The first one HERE says that this is an excellent document and a “victory” for conservative Catholics. The second one HERE is apologetic (in the technical sense) defending his previous stance. There’s a lot of emotion. I think Father needs to think about this more.
At Crisis Magazine, Msgr. Richard C. Antall has a piece called “Prudence and Symbolic Ambiguity” with the tag “If you knew that the person was going to misunderstand your blessing, would it be right to let him or her be in vincible ignorance?”
There’s a lot more out there.
Out of the chaos some clarity will emerge.
In the meantime, please consider what I wrote the other day:
More than ever there is greater need and urgency that we make sure our own “houses are in order”. If you don’t already,…
- start making thorough and honest examinations of conscience.
- Start making reparation for wrongs and sins.
- Undertake sincerely to forgive those who have harmed you.
- Do penances.
- Seek to purify memories.
- Perform corporal and spiritual works of mercy.
- Dedicate some time each day to prayer, especially the Rosary.
- Attend to the duties of your state in life.
- Read Scripture and review your catechism.
- Pray for priests and bishops.
- Go to confession regularly.
- Receive Communion only in the state of grace.
UPDATE 12 Dec 17:25
This is pretty big.
CARDINAL PRESIDENT of Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa & Madagascar (SECAM) sends letter to presidents of local bishops conferences asking their opinion on #Vatican Declaration on Blessings in view of drawing up a single response “valid for the whole Church in Africa” pic.twitter.com/QforHwfNwG
— Diane Montagna (@dianemontagna) December 21, 2023
Loading ...
two notes:
1. this will open a floodgate of litigation against sound priests as has been seen with local baker Jack Philips who is constantly in court for refusal to make caked that celebrate various forms of sexual depravity;
2. the current state of my will is such that everything (not that i have much) is going to church-related entities – that is about to be sharply curtailed, lest those assets go to the plaintiffs described above.
Serious question – if a priest were to bless an unholy act, would he be bringing a curse upon himself?
God the Father is very clear in the Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena about this particular sin and the standard to which He holds His priests.
Great response from Don Pagliarani:
Such encouragement to proceed pastorally with these blessings leads in practice, inexorably, to the systematic acceptance of situations incompatible with the moral law, whatever else is said.
This unfortunately corresponds to the assertions of Pope Francis, who defines as “superficial and naive” the attitude of those who force people to behave “in a way for which they are not yet mature, or of which they are not capable [1]”.
This idea, which no longer believes in the power of grace and rejects the cross, does not help anyone avoid sin. It replaces true forgiveness and true mercy with a sadly impotent amnesty. And only accelerates the loss of souls and the destruction of Catholic morality.
All the convoluted language and sophistical dressing up of the document of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith cannot hide the elementary and obvious reality of these blessings: they will do nothing more than reinforce these unions in their intrinsically sinful situation, and encourage others to follow them. This will merely be a substitute for Catholic marriage.
In fact, it manifests a profound lack of faith in the supernatural, in the grace of God and the strength of the cross to live in virtue, in purity and in charity, in accordance with the will of God.
It is a naturalistic and defeatist spirit that loosely aligns itself with the spirit of the world, the enemy of God.
https://fsspx.news/en/news/communique-superior-general-sspx-41522
Tempus: a curse upon himself?
That is a serious question. I have to think on this and perhaps consult.
One thing I do know: I’ll never have to worry about that for myself.
I’m damned angry about all of this duplicity. I’m 43 years old and God hasn’t dealt me the greatest hand — abusive family members, financial troubles, now physically declining due to MS. I’m expected to cling to my cross and exhibit heroic virtue to be in union with Christ. Yet this group gets to have their cake and eat it too with the Pope’s blessing. What a bunch of bull.
As the days have pasted, I have taken another look at this. I think Francis did this for one purpose. Not to embrace the Sodomites but to financially ruin Holy Mother Church. The lawsuits are probably in place. Priest will be deliberately targeted. Especially Traditional Priest Francis will be more than happy to sell off church property to pay for these cases until the Church is bankrupt. Francis and his cohorts will NEVER destroy the Church. He will try to destroy the Temple. The churches both great and small, all with a history of devout Catholics who built them.
Pingback: Priests and the imparting of blessings for same-sex “couples”. Risks? Wherein Fr. Z prays. | Fr. Z's Blog
@Not, @Gregg
At least as far as the US goes, there isn’t a civil case to be had. A blessing isn’t a good or a service, has no legal value, and has a stipulated monetary value of zero as priests are barred canonically from charging for such things. There is no ability for the US court to offer redress, especially as the Court forcing a priest to actively perform a religious act would be a violation of the First Amendment.
The whole gay blessing/marriage thing has ripped apart Protestant-land for decades now and if there was the possibility of viable civil cases, the precedent would be miles long by now.
@Annaliese, God bless you in your struggles. I’m trying to take the humiliation as an opportunity to unite myself to the Lord in the houses of Herod and Pilate, where He was subjected to buffets and spitting. We do not walk where He has not yet been before us.
Fortunately Tucho left in the word “spontaneously.”
Padre can we set an appointment for your blessing
No, I cannot. Pope’s rules. that’s not spontaneous. Sorry!
@Annaliese, God bless you in your struggles. My wife has suffered with chronic fatigue syndrome for over 30 years so I understand how hard it is to deal with a debilitating condition and still be faithful to our wedding vows.
The fact that these people in “irregular” situations think they deserve something special – a blessing – by the Church indicates their unwillingness to do what has been proscripted in both the old and new testaments and Church law. Their intention, while unstated, seems to be to destroy the Catholic Church.
They could have what they want in the Episcopal church but then they wouldn’t stand out as unique. So I guess they need the street cred of being Catholic to accomplish what they desire.
Let us pray for our priests that they will survive this trial
I was “inspired” to record another parody hymn: “We Need Not Keep From Sinning” (based on “How Can I Keep From Singing”)
First verse:
Our lives go on as in the past
Our appetites are sated
The rigid Church admits at last
Her teachings were outdated
The spirit’s voice cannot be heard
Instead, the flesh is winning
For if our vice can now be blessed
We need not keep from sinning
If I understood the content of the document, a non liturgical, not public, not sacramental-ish blessing, would be something close to “have a nice day.”
And nothing more.
Fr. Reader says: “AhhhhhCHOO!”
“Bless you!”
James Matin and his associates are stooges of the devil. I fear for their salvation. “Father forgive them, they know not what the do.” Or do they?
“The whole gay blessing/marriage thing has ripped apart Protestant-land for decades now”
The small rural town where my husband and I now live was originally settled by German Lutherans and has a very active Lutheran church. It belongs to a group called Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC), which I had never heard of until I saw the acronym on their sign. Turns out this group was formed about 15-20 years ago (mid/late 2000s) by formerly ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) congregations that could no longer accept what ELCA was doing with regard to same-sex marriage, openly gay pastors and bishops, and other issues. They did not, however, join the more conservative Missouri Synod because they still permit individual congregations to appoint or keep women pastors. Every individual congregation that joined the LCMC had to do so by a vote of the parish members, so this is an issue that a lot of our neighbors had to ponder when that church made its decision. So now I have to wonder how much longer it could be before the Catholic parishes a few miles up the road have to make similar choices?
I certainly don’t mean you, Fr. Z, you are not an apologist for any of these things.
Father, can you explain what “seek to purify memories” means? Thanks.
I find almost as disturbing about the normalization of same sex individual as a “couple” is the documents attack on sacred liturgy. It has an inducement of the decentralization and destruction of liturgical norms. Almost as if to indicate that yes these blessings shouldn’t be liturgical but really none should be as liturgy by its nature it to rigid to properly accompany people. They would liturgy comes out in the document almost os often as the word couple. It is has nothing good to say about it.
Accurate Roman Catholic theology is the product of prayerful reflection upon Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the perennial Magisterium. It is nothing less than a support for freedom for the individual and entirely liberating.
Fiducia Supplicans is a clear exhibition of rigidity. Its citations are primarily Bergoglian — 65% of the 31 provided in the document. Divine Revelation ceased with the death of St. John the Evangelist. There are no biblical references provided. From whence does this new teaching emerge?
Rigid ideological perspective is the product of a mind unconformed to the Truth.
The poetic dissonance employed as a defense of this document and its erroneous content is simply disturbing.
Yesterday I read of the Pope’s attempt to establish a defense for Fiducia Supplicans: “The real, central difference [between “progressives” and conservatives] is between lovers and those who have lost that initial passion. That is the difference. Only those who love can fare forward….” emerges from the Chair of St. Peter?
We reason as Catholics, not as adolescents.
Franklin Graham provided a rebuke yesterday day to the Vatican. It is a moment in the history of Catholicism that will not soon be forgotten.
With this document Pope Francis undermines not only Divine Revelation and moral theology, but the entire spectrum of Roman Catholic reasoning. Is this what he intends? Whether or not, it is he and his righthand man who have accomplished it – God willing, only in the short term.
Pingback: “If a priest were to bless an unholy act, would he be bringing a curse upon himself?” – non veni pacem
I have a more simple and foundational question on this topic of blessings. I ask sincerely.
–
In high school, our PE teacher was a lesbian living with her significant other, who was the athletic director for a time (yes, a Catholic school in the 70s & 80s). This was just an unspoken fact. They were likeable people!
–
In my 20s, God gently opened my heart to the Catholic faith I had not learned in my poor religious upbringing. My Mom was a proud Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. I asked her then if it was OK for her to offer Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament to that PE teacher, knowing she was an active lesbian, living with a new significant other. My Mom said, a little shamefacedly, that we don’t really know if they are lesbians, then quickly added that, if they were, then they needed the Holy Eucharist more than anyone else. 25-year-old me replied, Good Point! But it never sat well, and I continued to chew on that idea.
–
A whole lifetime later I began homeschooling my own children using a solid Catholic curriculum, and thereby learned to approach ideas with a Catholic mindset.
–
I think I understand correctly that a person in mortal sin cannot receive God’s grace. A priest is offering a golden cup to the person he blesses, and if that person is in a state of grace, the drink is rich and more nourishing than we can know. Conversely, if the person he blesses is in mortal sin, he receives an empty cup. He receives nothing.
–
Now to my question: isn’t it a lie to tell gay couples that they are truly receiving God’s blessing and help when they ask for and receive this newly minted spontaneous blessing for homosexuals? Might that blessing actually be worse for them than no blessing at all?
That update about the cardinal from Madagascar’s proposal seems particularly important, as an entire continent’s bishops’ conference would be a massive step against it. It is, however, too bad that it is grounded in an appeal to Synodality.
I came into the Church because of an intervention from a prolife Catholic lady whom I believe will one day be canonized. We had a conversation about this very topic when I was in my early 20s.
She argued then that it would ‘never’ happen. “Never” was about 20 years.
Last Easter was my 18th in the Church. This pill has been bitter to swallow for a couple of reasons. When I started going to college in 1999, I went in to be a teacher. Before graduation, things changed so drastically that:
Marriage was no longer kept to men and women in my country, and my profession made devotion to sodomy a requirement in order to teach. So I wasted four years of my life attending college for a degree so that I could teach, but I was still barred from the profession I trained for because this very small minority dictated my life.
I also lost the opportunity to be married in my home country. Thankfully, I got married before this mess in a faithful Catholic country (but not before that country and that state capitulated too (sigh), but I did my best.
Now, my civil marriage and my church marriage are both invalid in the eyes of God because that small minority that has spent the last two decades continues to make strides in limiting my freedoms and my ability to live my life in conformity with the wishes of God.
I have already spoken to my wife. We aren’t going to be leaving, but it’s been a difficult path the last few years. We were both holdouts on the vaccine, and were barred from my parish for two years because of it (and bad priests, the same that refused to marry us). Recently they reinstated us, and one of the priests are gone, so we have gone back to the mass.
We were talking about fully reinstating tithing. That… will not be happening. I am glad we decided not to fully trust our parish again. I am not sure we will stay there, I know we will attend midnight mass for the first time, but beyond that we have some decisions to make.
Our attendance at a compromised parish sends the wrong message to people that this is ok. It is not. We may end up going to the Ukrainian Catholic parish in our local community. It is the only church with actual icons.
I am heartened that the Poles, the Ukrainians, the entire East and the Africans are out. Now the real battle is with my wife’s country and her people. They are 100% opposed to Francis now, and hopefully they will go too, and that will leave Francis just with Europe and North America and the Anglosphere. We are praying greatly that this will happen, because then our marriage will be revalidated.
Thank you for your faithful witness Father Z.
What I’m going to say may be unwelcome, but here goes:
– Seeking to explain these events with the darker, if not darkest, motives and explanations is very tempting, but I caution against it.
First and foremost, WHY? Why give time and energy to such thoughts? My “why” is a serious question. There are times when *some* individuals must try to sort out the exact nature of the battlefield, and try to “game out” what is going on. But note I said *some*; there is no need for everyone to do so.
Moreover, I think there can be great harm in doing so. Worrying, losing sleep, becoming bitter and cynical, sharing thoughts arising from that bitterness, oopsing into uncharity, are all bad fruit; why cultivate that crop?
I wonder if we don’t justify such thinking to ourselves by saying, oh I have to be prepared, or I have to be well informed. Who says this behavior is the right preparation? I see its destructiveness play out online, that alone is ample evidence of the error of following that path.
– So, instead of trying to explain others’ motives — such as the Pope’s — in dark terms, try instead to understand them as generously as you can. Yes, someone will mock you for being naive, oh well. There is notable difference between being “willfully blind” and averting ones eyes for modesty’s sake. This is the latter. Whatever dark motives I might suspect or fear, I will avert my eyes from dwelling on them, and give my energy elsewhere.
– God is the Judge and he is not mocked. If the motives involved are as fell as you fear, then God knows and will do as he judges; and those who are culpable will receive what is right. What more do you need to know?
– Better than focusing on the evil of others, plan to avoid your own participation in evil. That is fruitful. Plan how and when to speak with both charity and boldness — not easy.
– It may seem some have an “easy” path…but if it is to hell, then what is that to envy or resent?
Pingback: SATVRDAY AFTERNOON EDITION • BigPulpit.com