Some otherwise faithful Catholics are obviously having difficulty accepting that the Vatican is so depraved that it has put out such a poisonous document. They want to believe so badly that this pope is not so corrupt as to undermine the Church that they twist themselves into pretzels believing that there might be some redeeming quality to FS as to restore their faith in this papacy. But therein lies their error. They put too much faith in a sitting pope rather than in the Church's teachings and traditions as handed down through the centuries.
I will now relay some of the most frequent denial tactics that I've read on social media. Here is the text of Fiducia Supplicans. By the way- please have the FS document open as you read this post.
"The priest gives a blessing to all people after Mass". That is a general blessing to the congregation at large, not targeted to specific people, especially those designated because of sinful relationships. It has always been ok to bless people and ask for God's guidance. That begs the question of just why did the pope highlight those in "irregular relationships"? And why is the word "irregular" used when the more truthful adjective is "sinful"?
"The theology of marriage isn't challenged" Perhaps not overtly, but it is. A blessing on a gay couple, even though it may not be "liturgical", does lend legitimacy to the relationship that makes those two people a "couple". "Only individuals are being blessed, not the relationship". Read the document. It's right there in the title to Section 3 of the tome.
Those are two common attempts to deny the harm of FS. Let's take another look at the thing, shall we?
Since my previous post on this topic, there have been a number of commentaries that have demonstrated the fatal flaws of Fiducia Supplicans. I see no need for me to "reinvent the wheel as it were, so I will link to them and recommend all to your reading. An important aside - I link to articles such as these so that you can draw your own conclusions and not just rely on my understandings of what the authors say. We ALL have a duty, no matter our stations in life, to be informed of these matters. Ignorance is not a morally acceptable option.
The first of these is an analysis by Cardinal Gerhard Muller. He notes several troubling aspects of FS. First, there is the attempt to introduce another type of "blessing". Why? Because the blessing already recognized by the Church demand agreement between the blessings and the Church's teachings. Having this last sentence in mind, please pop over to the other browser window with FS open, and read paragraph 12 in its entirety. You should be getting a sense of how insidious FS is, since it overtly calls for a new type of "blessing" that is not subjected to "too many moral prerequisites", because they could "overshadow the unconditional power of God's love". Absolute satanic nonsense! The "moral prerequisites" are God's Commands. His love and His commands stem from Him. God does not have a split personality.
Muller goes on to say that sinful persons can be blessed, e.g., blessed to ask graces to turn from their sin. However, paragraph 31 talks of blessing homosexual
couples, not individuals. An attempt to do that would be to cooperate in the mortal sin of homosexual conduct. One cannot bless a couple without blessing what defines them as a couple - in this case, mortal sin. That is both sacrilege and blasphemy. Added to that is the guilt of cooperating with the mortal sin of sodomy.
Again, I urge you to read Cardinal Muller's entire piece. But now we'll read what others have said.
The next article to consider was written by Father Thomas Weinandy and was published in First Things. Father cleared up a misconception held by many. Francis did not pen that tripe. Rather, it came from Cardinal Victor Fernandez, aka Kissy Face, with Francis' approval. Weinandy's main focus appears to be on paragraph 31, which is quite the poison pill amidst all that word salad. Weinandy aptly calls it "jargon, sophistry and deceit".
In his last paragraph, Weinandy suggests the possibility that FS might have been well-intentioned. Here I must disagree with Father. The track records of both Francis and Kissy-Face testify against any possibility that this is well-intentioned. It is a brazen attempt to cajole poorly-educated clergy into doing the indefensible - to normalize mortal sin in the Church's teachings.
Now let's look at what Eric Sammons says in Crisis Magazine. He speaks a bit on the role of the pope in the Church and contrasts that with Francis' conduct. In the writings of previous popes, their footnotes are drawn upon Scripture, doctrines, writings of their predecessors. Not so for Francis. Sammons states, and I think him correct, that approximately 65% of his references are his own previous teachings and/or writings. He is his own source of teaching, in other words.
Paragraph 7 states that "the Holy Father's above-mentioned response invites us to broaden and enrich the meaning of blessings." Sammons correctly points out that it is not the proper role of any pope to "broaden and enrich" anything. Rather, the pope's responsibility is to teach and guard what has been handed down from the apostles.
Sammon's piece deserves a close and careful read. I need not rehash what he said, but he does do a great job in unpacking FS, illustrating its divergence from Tradition.
More on FS soon.
