The “Declaration” Fiducia Supplicans authorizes “ordained ministers” to give blessings to couples in “irregular situations” and same-sex couples. By issuing Fiducia Supplicans Pope Francis returns directly to the project of transforming Church teaching on issues touching on sexual morality – a mission set aside temporarily in 2021 in favor of the war against liturgical traditionalism. But over the last two years these questions continued to be agitated, with the Pope’s approval, by the Synodal Path in Germany, hierarchies and individual bishops in Western Europe and finally by the Synod on Synodality worldwide. Fiducia Supplicans (“FS”) rivals Amoris Laetitia and Traditionis Custodes as Pope Francis’s most radical act.
The ”Presentation” to FS reveals the fundamental assumptions underlying the document. First, FS confirms Pope Francis as the source of Catholic teaching on morality, in line with the extreme understanding of papal power that had emerged by the time of Pius XII. FS is based on Francis’s “pastoral vision”; his statements are a “decisive element” for the work on this document – the curia is, after all “primarily an instrument at the service of the successor of Peter.” 20 of the 31 footnotes reference documents of Francis. Of the rest, the oldest reference is to the 1985 edition of Pope Paul VI’s “Divine office.” So, the entire history of Catholic tradition and magisterium on these issues is ignored, along with the directly relevant passages of Scripture.
Second, the Presentation to FS, as well as the text, presents a “modernist” celebration of progress, creativity, spontaneity, evolution, expansion, and development. FS offers a “specific and innovative contribution,” “permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings.” FS “implies a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church.” All this, while claiming to remain firm on what it calls the “traditional doctrine” of the Church regarding marriage.
Indeed, in this choice of words, can we not detect a distancing from the doctrine and discipline of marriage with their “fixed nature,” which FS claims to preserve intact? Is there not a sense that the “informal” “non-liturgical blessings” it introduces may be superior to merely liturgical provisions? For do not informal blessings “inhabit a realm of greater spontaneity and freedom” compared to the “impoverishment” produced by “ritualization?” This is entirely in line with the previous statements of Pope Francis, and for that matter the philosophy of the post-conciliar liturgy, with its love of freedom from “rigid” rules and spontaneity.
FS claims to do all this by invoking the magic word “pastoral.” By qualifying its provisions as pastoral, FS claims to be able to avoid any discussion of the traditional understanding of marriage or of the liturgy. “The Church, moreover, must shy away from resting its pastoral praxis on the fixed nature of certain doctrinal or disciplinary schemes, especially when they lead to ‘a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism.’” But isn’t this radical distinction between the pastoral, on the one hand, and doctrine or discipline, on the other, unsustainable? Because the “praxis” – the “doing” – and doctrine and Church law must be in harmony. Didn’t Christ call the divergence of practice from the precepts of God’s law “hypocrisy?“
For, in substance, the praxis advocated by FS directly contradicts the consistent prior teaching of the Church. Regarding same sex-couples, did not the immediate predecessor to Cardinal Victor Fernandez, the author of FS, explicitly reject the possibility of such blessings as recently as 2021? Does not the giving of blessings to couples as couples endorse their relationship as free from moral censure? Certainly, a reading of FS using the ordinary sense of the words would lead one to think so. Picking up an argument from Amoris Laetitia, FS quotes: “Pastoral charity requires us not to treat simply as ‘sinners’ those whose guilt or responsibility may be attenuated by various factors affecting subjective imputability.” Thus, in the situation of the “irregular relationships” treated by FS there really is no “objectively immoral” situations that can be discerned the ordained minister. Moreover, “Pope Francis proposed a description of this kind of blessing that is offered to all without requiring anything.” Thus, the couples in irregular relationships do not have to repent, let alone change their lifestyle.
Similarly, FS emphasizes the ”non-liturgical” nature of the blessings it introduces as a key to distinguish such blessing from the sacrament of matrimony. According to FS, a non-liturgical blessing – aside from its other claimed advantages cited above – is free from any association with the liturgical blessings associated with matrimony. But this reasoning is totally specious. For FS in fact spells out a set of ritual or “semi-liturgical” rules of its own. The “spontaneous” blessings in FS are public acts with the participation of an “ordained minister.”
“This is a blessing that, although not included in any liturgical rite, unites intercessory prayer with the invocation of God’s help by those who humbly turn to him.”
“These non-ritualized blessings (should) never cease being simple gestures.”
“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.”
“Such a blessing may instead find its place in other contexts, such as a visit to a shrine, a meeting with a priest, a prayer recited in a group, or during a pilgrimage.”
FS further states it would be wrong to “expect the same moral conditions for receiving a simple blessing that are called for in the reception of the sacraments,” yet Pope Francis himself insisted in Amoris Laetitia that the Sacrament of the Eucharist could indeed be received in spite of the recipient’s lack of “perfection.” Thus, the Pope himself has blurred this allegedly significant distinction between “simple” blessings and sacraments.
By reiterating the need to avoid “scandal,” FS itself confirms that it will inevitably be the occasion of such scandals. For FS was issued in a specific historical context. Regarding same-sex marriages, for years massive agitation for the rights within the Church of same-sex couples has been taking place in the secular media. And the overwhelming majority of Catholics – including, I understand, of the bishops as well – get their information on the Church from the secular media. The whole world knows by now that the German Synodal Path has been fighting for same sex marriages or blessings. Various bishops and bishops’ conferences in Europe have implemented rituals for such blessings. So, almost everyone, within and outside of the Church, understands that FS as a total reversal of the Church’s position in response to these pressures. I understand that President Biden, for example, has welcomed FS.
What will be the consequences of FS? In Europe the forces advocating for the relaxation or the abolition of the church’s rules on sexual morality are celebrating. They will now move on to the next issue: married priests, women priests and deacons, lay participation in the election of bishops, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, etc. As to the rituals for same sex marriages they already have in place, FS will undoubtedly incentivize the European bishops not only to retain them but to expand their use. Regardless of FS’s supposed restrictions on “rituals” similar to marriage, why should they back down now after such a great triumph?
The reaction of other bishops’ conferences (like that of the US) has been much more restrained, even cold – they have seized on the language in FS to assert that nothing has happened and thus avoid the issue. Of course, that was the intent of the casuistry of FS in the first place! The big news is that several episcopal conferences outside of Western Europe and the United States have publicly distanced themselves from FS. Thus, we may be seeing the beginning of an “Anglican” situation developing in the Catholic Church, where the believers on the outskirts of the Church adhere to the principles they have been taught( or nurtured under persecution), while the unbelieving leadership of the Church in Western Europe, the United States and much of Latin America pursues further accommodation with the world.
As for the clergy, I fear that what is set out in FS as a possibility will soon be compulsory. In Western Europe, episcopal conferences and individual diocese have already issued rituals for the marriages of same sex couples. There have already been statements of European bishops that no priest can refuse to give the blessings authorized by FS. The conflict of conscience for those who cannot accept FS will be immediate and drastic. In the US, however, I anticipate the following scenario developing very shortly. Couples in “irregular” situations or same-sex couples will seek out priests who they know would be reluctant to give such blessings – for example, at parishes that still celebrate the traditional mass, priests of the Ecclesia Dei institutes or of Opus Dei etc. – and present themselves for a blessing. If this is refused they will immediately turn to the New York Times, the Vatican or the just the local bishop. In both Europe and the United States, assuming Francis remains in office, a new persecution similar to that of the traditionalists under Traditionis Custodes but even broader in scope may arise.
For the laity the long-term results will be disastrous. Just like the progressives, they will assume that in the case of restrictions on actual conduct imposed by the Church, every conflict between the Church and the secular world will ultimately be resolved by capitulation by the Church. This will affect not just contributions but every aspect of Catholic life. The level of compliance with Church’s moral teachings will sink yet further. And how could a man commit to the diocesan priesthood in the knowledge that, based on the evidence of FS, he not only will have to follow its rules, but the priesthood itself might well be radically changed? Thus, depending on how long Francis lives (and the nature of his successor) a truly horrific scenario of conflict will materialize. This possibility alone should motivate the bishops to take a more forceful stance.
Related Articles
No user responded in this post