Correctio filialis and staying on course.

A lot of folk might be thinking that it's high time to put the boot to certain people and things.

Correctio filialis

Confusion reigns in many precincts of the Church. Confusion has become the go-to destination for a theological and spiritual vacation.

As a former outsider who sought refuge in the Catholic Church, was received into the Church during the looney 1980s, and who loves the papacy, current events are not earth nor faith shattering. No sinful relationship can ever be blessed. Period. Attempts to twist the Church's ageless teaching are not so much unsettling as they are an annoyance.

Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith. - Galatians 6:7-10

Attempted blessings for people willfully and unrepentantly persisting in problematic situations on inappropriate occasions should be a concern. The latest imprudent act - imprudent because those who issued a muddled document should know that the media will spin it sideways - brings to mind those old or even contemporary photos of bishops and priests blessing bombs and other weapons, to which the reasonable person might respond, "What the hell are they thinking?!" Hell's citizenry is likely to cheer at the next round of priests running away with what they claim are actions justified by the recent Vatican directive (see update below). Eyes are likely turning toward Germany for the publication of such ceremonies.

To be sure, God will not be mocked. Only a few thousand years of biblical precedent and some highly reliable interventions by our Lady at, for example, Fatima, not to mention the bold correction offered to popes by the saints, is needed to remind us that, in God's time, God will bring about change.

St. Bruno of Segni and St. Catherine of Siena: pray for the Church; pray for the pope; pray for us!

The Camel's Nose

There can be little doubt that innumerable prayers are going up to God that plead for relief of one kind or another. We all have an obligation to pray. God can bring extraordinary beauty out of man's wayward preoccupations. How we align our actions says a great deal about the orientation of our hearts.

At one time, the Holy Land was occupied by a seemingly unconquerable foreign power, the Roman Empire. In that time and place, God chose to enter our existence in a most vulnerable way. When tempted to anger or despair or frustration, one might ponder that action of God and also recall another act of vulnerability by which the Lord demonstrates His love and mercy toward us. The Holy Eucharist is God offering Himself to us in the meekest of forms, bread and wine transformed into His very Body and Blood!

Instead of sounding like sedevacantists, schismatics, heretics and the like, when the Vatican or any prelate or priest issues a theological and/or pastoral misfire, or running to dive into conformity with progressive schlock, we must pray humbly and, mindful of truth and charity, speak boldly the unchanging Gospel of Jesus Christ, and call the doubtful to align themselves with the only Gospel the Church knows: the Good News of truth, beauty and goodness of salvation in Jesus Christ that the Church has received from the Apostles.

UPDATES

Latest update: 23DEC2023

Further Reading/Viewing

• https://thefederalist.com/2023/12/18/the-media-are-lying-pope-francis-did-not-approve-priests-blessing-same-sex-relationships/
• https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2023/12/18/podcast-will-the-church-now-bless-same-sex-couples-with-fr-gerald-murray/
• https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/did-the-pope-just-permit-gay-marriage
• https://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2023/12/confusion-reigns-and-who-is-caught-in.html

Bishop Robert Barron weighs in.

BCCC

NCRegister: Father Jeffrey Kirby

• https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/fiducia-supplicans-a-pastor-s-view

In a healthy Church, the various structures — including Vatican dicasteries — would support and champion the grassroots reality of parish life, since that is where the vast majority of believers hear the Gospel, sacramentally encounter the Lord, and experience the life of the Church.

The recent declaration Fiducia Supplicans, however, is not a reflection of a healthy Church. The pastoral concessions it gives for the blessing of people in same-sex relationships and other irregular marriages is imprudent and does not reflect reality “on the ground.” In fact, this declaration — however well-intentioned it might be — causes unnecessary confusion, moral ambiguity, anger, pastoral hurt, and a regrettable, needless tension between the baptized and their appointed shepherds.

Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former Prefect of the Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith (CDF, now DDF)

• https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/muller-fiducia-supplicans-is-self

Priests should proclaim God's love and goodness to all people and also help sinners and those who are weak and have difficulty in conversion with counsel and prayer. This is very different from pointing out to them with self-invented but misleading signs and words that God is not so demanding about sin, thus hiding the fact that sin in thought, word and deed distances us from God. There is no blessing, not only in public but also in private, for sinful living conditions that objectively contradict God's holy will. And it is no evidence of a healthy hermeneutic that the courageous defenders of Christian doctrine are branded as rigorists, more interested in the legalistic fulfillment of their moral norms than in the salvation of concrete persons. For this is what Jesus says to ordinary people: “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.” (Mt 11:28-30). And the apostle explains it this way: “And his commandments are not burdensome, for whoever is begotten by God conquers the world. And the victory that conquers the world is our faith. Who [indeed] is the victor over the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 Jn 5:3-5). At a time when a false anthropology is undermining the divine institution of marriage between a man and a woman, with the family and its children, the Church should remember the words of her Lord and Head: ““Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few” (Mt 7:13-14).

- - -

Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., is the Archbishop Emeritus of Philadelphia. 

• https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/12/the-cost-of-making-a-mess

One of the standards the Church uses to measure the quality of her leaders is a simple line from Scripture: “God is not the author of confusion but of peace” (1 Cor. 14:33). So it was for Paul. So it is now. So it is for local pastors and bishops, including the bishop of Rome. Confusion among the faithful can often be a matter of innocent individuals who hear but fail to understand the Word. Confused teaching, however, is another matter. It’s never excusable. The transmission of Christian truth requires prudence and patience because humans are not machines. But it also demands clarity and consistency. Deliberate or persistent ambiguity—anything that fuels misunderstanding or seems to leave an opening for objectively sinful behavior—is not of God. And it inevitably results in damage to individual souls and to our common Church life.

[...]

Over the past decade ambiguity on certain matters of Catholic doctrine and practice has become a pattern for the current pontificate. The pope’s criticism of American Catholics has too often been unjust and uninformed. Much of the German Church is effectively in schism, yet Rome first unwisely tolerated Germany’s “synodal path,” and then reacted too slowly to preclude the negative results. At a time when fatherhood and male Christian spiritual leadership are in crisis, the Holy Father has asked his International Theological Commission to work on “de-masculinizing” the Church. The most urgent challenge that Christians face in today’s world is anthropological: who and what a human being is; whether we have some higher purpose that warrants our special dignity as a species; whether we’re anything more than unusually smart animals who can invent and reinvent ourselves. And yet our focus for 2024 is a synod on synodality.

Saying these things, of course, will invite claims of “disloyalty.” But the real disloyalty is not speaking the truth with love. And that word “love” is not some free-floating balloon of goodwill. It’s an empty shell without the truth to fill it. In Brazil in 2013, the Holy Father encouraged young people to “make a mess.” That’s come to pass in ways surely unintended by the pope. But in the end, pastoral leaders are accountable for their words and their actions. Because, as St. Paul said so long ago, “God is not the author of confusion but of peace.”

- - -

Dr. Edward Feser

• https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2023/12/the-scandal-of-fiducia-supplicans.html#more

A well-rounded, philosophically confident analysis.

The bad

The problem comes from the Declaration’s claim that this principle is such an “innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings” that it calls for “a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church.” In particular, claims Fiducia Supplicans, it entails “the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples.” Later on the Declaration repeats that what is in view is “the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex.” And again, the Declaration speaks of cases where a “prayer of blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation” or “the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple,” and where the request can be granted given that certain conditions are met. (Emphasis added in each case)

What has generated controversy are the words I have put in bold italics above. Indeed, “controversy” is much too mild a word. At the time I write this, the bishops of Poland, Ukraine, Nigeria, Malawi and Zambia have indicated that they will not implement the Declaration. Cardinal Ambongo, Archbishop of Kinshasa, has called for a united African response to the problematic new policy. The Declaration has been criticized by Cardinal Müller, Archbishop Chaput, Archbishop Peta and Bishop Schneider, and the British Confraternity of Catholic Clergy. Among priests and theologians, criticisms have been raised by Fr. Thomas Weinandy, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Prof. Larry Chapp, and others. 

The problems with Fiducia Supplicans can be summed up in three words: incoherence, abuse, and implicature. Let’s consider each in turn.

 

The incoherence stems from the fact that, as Dan Hitchens has pointed out at First Things, the Declaration contradicts the 2021 Vatican document. The contradiction is clear when we compare the following two statements:

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 unions between persons of the same sex”

2023: “Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex”

I trust that the contradiction is obvious to anyone who reads the two statements dispassionately, but in case it is not, here’s an explanation. A “couple” is just the same thing as two people in a “relationship” or “partnership.” “Irregular situations” is a common euphemism in contemporary Catholic discourse for relationships that involve fornication, an invalid marriage, same-sex sexual activity, or the like. The 2021 document clearly peremptorily rules out any blessing for a couple in this sort of situation, whereas the 2023 document clearly allows it under certain circumstances. Since these are contradictory, the new Declaration entails a clear reversal of the 2021 document.

On Twitter, I’ve seen several odd, tortuous, and utterly unconvincing attempts to get around this problem. Some say that the new document authorizes blessing “couples” but not “unions.” The problem, of course, is that the distinction is merely verbal. Both the 2021 and 2023 documents are addressing romantic relationships. And in that context, to be a “couple” entails having a “union” of some kind (an emotional bond, going steady, sharing bed and board, or whatever). To say that one might bless couples but not unions is like saying that one could bless bachelors without blessing unmarried men.

What if “unions” are understood as “civil unions,” in the legal sense? This does indeed have a different meaning than “couples,” since not all couples are in civil unions. But this does not solve the problem, because the 2021 document rules out blessing any unions of a same-sex or otherwise irregular kind, not merely civil unions in the legal sense. Indeed, Fiducia Supplicans is doubly incoherent, because it reiterates the teaching of the 2021 document that “the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.” This statement contradicts the statement that couples can be blessed, because a “couple” and a “union” are the same thing. The new Declaration thus not only contradicts the 2021 document, it contradicts itself.

Some have claimed that couples and unions are not the same thing, on the grounds that “couple” can refer to simply a pair of individual things, as when one speaks of drinking “a couple of beers” or having slept for “a couple of hours.” But the problem is that the context concerns, again, couples in the romantic sense. And a couple in that sense is more than merely a pair of individuals. It is, again, a pair who have some emotional bond or the like. It would be absurd to pretend that Fiducia Supplicans is speaking of “couples” in a thin sense that might include two complete strangers who simply happen to be standing next to each other as each asks the same priest for a blessing!

Some have claimed that Fiducia Supplicans merely authorizes blessing the individuals who make up the couple, not the couple itself. But the document explicitly and repeatedly speaks of blessing couples, not merely the individuals in the couple. Moreover, the 2021 document already explicitly said that individuals could be blessed. So there would be no need for the new document, and in particular nothing in it that counts as “innovative” or as “a real development,” without the reference to “couples,” specifically.

Some have claimed that there is crucial significance in the phrase “blessing for couples,” as if the “for” somehow entailed that the couple itself is not being blessed. One problem with this is that we need some explanation of how a “blessing for couples” amounts to anything different from “blessing couples.” Another problem is that the Declaration also does in fact speak of “blessing couples,” and not merely of “blessings for couples.”

Some have claimed there is no contradiction between the 2021 and 2023 documents insofar as one can, they say, bless a “couple” without blessing the “relationship” between the individuals who make up the couple. But again, the document speaks of blessing couples, not merely the individuals in the couple. The blessing is imparted to a couple qua couple, not merely qua individuals. That is, as I have said, why the document can claim to be “innovative” and “a real development.” But how can one bless a couple qua couple without blessing the relationship that makes it the case that they are a couple?

The 2021 document also explicitly says that while individuals in unions can be blessed, it “declares illicit any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such.” But to bless couples qua couples and not merely qua individuals is precisely “to acknowledge their unions as such.” So, even if one could make sense of the idea of blessing a couple without blessing the relationship, there would still be a contradiction between the 2021 and 2023 documents. Even acknowledging the union while blessing it, no less than the blessing itself, is forbidden by the 2021 document but allowed by the 2023 document.

The bottom line is that blessing “couples” in the 2023 document amounts to “blessing people qua in a relationship.” And the 2021 document’s prohibition on blessing “relationships” is obviously just a way of prohibiting “blessing people qua in a relationship.” The differences in phraseology between the documents are merely verbal. Perhaps the new document uses the words it does in the hope of avoiding a contradiction. The point, though, is that it does not in fact avoid a contradiction, given the way terms like “couple,” “relationship,” and the like are actually used when describing romantic and sexual situations. Nor are there any special theological usages in play here, for the relevant terms have none.

So, it is, in my judgement, sheer sophistry to deny that Fiducia Supplicans permits the blessing of couples in same-sex and other irregular relationships, and to deny that this contradicts the 2021 document.