(LifeSiteNews) — The document Fiducia Supplicans attempts to introduce a new practice, namely the blessing of “same-sex couples.”
In the three days since it has been released it has been generally understood as permitting the blessing of couples in same-sex relationships, in such a way as to welcome or give approval of the relationship.
As we will see in this analysis, these interpretations are reasonable and clearly reflect what was intended by the author of the document.
The day after its release, Fr. James Martin celebrated a “same-sex blessing” which was clearly intended to confer approval on the relationship. Martin is a priest in good standing with the putative authorities in Rome and was personally invited by Francis to participate in the “Synod of Synodality.” The practice of celebratory “same-sex blessings” has already begun in Germany, without condemnation from Francis. The release of the document also coincides with the introduction of the practice in the Church of England.
If a document was released to confirm Catholic doctrine, then it would now be clear to all that the Catholic Church teaches that all sexual acts outside of marriage are gravely sinful and that nothing can be done to acknowledge the legitimacy of the relationships in which they take place or approve of them in any way at all.
On the contrary, the result of Fiducia Supplicans is that those purporting to be clergy of the Catholic Church are now able to, as the document states, give “blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex.”
The only reasonable conclusion is that what has occurred – the establishment of a practice of blessing same-sex relationships – is what was expected and desired.
There was no reason for releasing this document, other than to establish this practice. Blessings of individuals with same-sex attraction, and those with other struggles and difficulties, could already take place. The Church has a treasury of blessings, prayers and sacraments for all her children, to help them in all their needs. What she can never do is give approval to that which is intrinsically disordered, namely sexual relations outside of marriage.
The proper response of the Church towards same-sex “couples” is to assist them to reform their lives in accordance with the Church’s teaching. This is not compatible with recognizing them as a “couple,” yet that is exactly what the practice of blessing couples as couples does.
It is necessary to state this as an introduction to this analysis, rather than as conclusion, because the document can only be truly understood when viewed in this light.
Fiducia Supplicans possesses no coherent narrative, no coherent structure, no coherent argument. It cannot therefore be analyzed in a straightforward way.
It was created in order to be “mined” for two distinct purposes: (i) to provide “permission” for “ordained ministers” to proceed with the blessing of “same-sex couples” and (ii) to provide sufficient texts of an orthodox character with which critics of the text can be countered and silenced, and which will placate those who wish to believe that nothing has been changed.
As example of the first type of statement:
Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex.
An example of the second type of statement:
For this reason, since the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit.
These texts cannot be reconciled, and they are not intended to be reconciled.
Any attempt to do so fails to understand the purpose of the document, which is to advance error while weakening the resistance of those who would adhere to the orthodox faith by confusing them about its real intentions.
This is exactly the strategy that Pope St. Pius X warned against in his encyclical on the Modernist heresy:
This becomes still clearer to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In the writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful… Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist… In the same way they draw their distinctions between theological and pastoral exegesis and scientific and historical exegesis. (Pascendi Domenici Gregis, 18)
This is also the approach of the author of Fiducia Supplicans.
DETAILED ANALYSIS
With the above understanding in mind, we can now look at the document paragraph by paragraph and draw out the most important implications.
Paragraphs 1-3
These paragraphs form the introduction to the document. They introduce the subject, which is “the possibility of blessing same-sex couples.”
The author addresses himself to this possibility “encouraged by such a great and consoling truth” that the “great blessing of God is Jesus Christ… with the whom the Father blessed us ‘while we were still sinners.'”
In doing so he clearly sets the parameters for what will follow: the blessing of “same-sex couples” – that is, two men or two women in a relationship with a sexual aspect – is to be approved and the justification for this is going to be found in the mercy of God.
The introduction also explains that the document is a follow up to the dubia on this question submitted by a number of cardinals and the Responsum to it, which was made public in October 2023, just prior to the opening of the second “Synod on Synodality.”
Fiducia Supplicans notes that there were those who “did not consider the formulation of its answer and the reasons provided in the attached Explanatory Note to be sufficiently clear.” Therefore, “to meet the latter reaction,” this document will “take up the theme again and offer a vision that draws together the doctrinal aspects with the pastoral ones in a coherent manner.”
Finally, the introduction draws a distinction between “doctrinal aspects” and “pastoral ones.” The implications of such a distinction are drawn out in the rest of the document.
Paragraphs 4-6 form section I entitled, ‘The Blessing in the Sacrament of Marriage’
The purpose of paragraphs 4-6 is to introduce a particular idea, which the author very much wishes to be at the forefront of the reader’s mind. This idea will be repeated in different formulations throughout the document. The author wants to give us the impression that the most important issue at hand is the ”matter of avoiding that ‘something that is not marriage is being recognized as marriage.’” That ”when it comes to blessings, the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion.”
The implication is that the main problem with “same-sex blessings” is the possibility of confusion with marriage, and that if this confusion is avoided, the greatest danger is averted.
However, this is only one of the major issues at stake. An issue of primary importance is that these blessings give scandal because they are specifically of “couples” whose relationship by its nature has a sexual element. If this were not so, there would be no need for the document. There is nothing at all to prevent individuals, or friends, or families, asking a priest to bless them under the current practice of the Church. Indeed, some of the Eastern Churches have a specific ritual for blessing friendships.
Therefore, no one is under any illusion that the statement “couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex” refers to people engaging in relationships with a sexual element. Sexual acts outside of marriage are gravely immoral and neither they, nor their proximate occasions, can be approved in any way by the Church. The proper response of the Church towards same-sex “couples” is to assist them to reform their lives in accordance with the Church’s teaching. This is not compatible with recognizing them as a “couple,” yet that is exactly what the practice of blessing couples as couples does.
Furthermore, what is reaffirmed in this section of the document is not the principle that all sexual acts outside of a valid marriage are gravely sinful, but rather the following much more limited proposition:
This conviction is grounded in the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage; it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning.
Here we see a subtle but potent refusal to state that sexual acts outside of marriage are not permissible under any circumstances. The very context of the claim – that “same-sex couples” could receive a blessing – implies that there are other forms of relationship, which while not “fully” expressing the meaning of sexual relations, at least fulfil it in a partial way.
That there are “other unions” that differ from the “specific union of a man and a woman” is stated in paragraph six:
In this case, the blessing given by the ordained minister is tied directly to the specific union of a man and a woman, who establish an exclusive and indissoluble covenant by their consent. This fact allows us to highlight the risk of confusing a blessing given to any other union with the Rite that is proper to the Sacrament of Marriage.
It is important to note that this document is not written in isolation. It can be read in continuity with the documents of the family synods of 2014-15 and Amoris Laetitia of 2016. In all these cases the goal was to present Catholic moral teaching on sex and marriage as an ideal, but to accept other forms of union/relationship as having some legitimacy. For example, in Amoris Laetita, No. 301, Francis wrote that it “can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.”
Fiducia Supplicans is a logical next step from Amoris Laetita.
The avoidance of any reference to sin is also clear in the following paragraph:
For this reason, when it comes to blessings, the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion. Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.
First, we may note that the document is drawing a baseless distinction between “same-sex couples” and “unions of persons of the same sex.” As such “unions” have no basis in reality or any form of validity, the claim that it is not the “union” which is being blessed but the “couple” changes little of the significance of the act. It remains the case that what is being blessed is two individuals who are presenting themselves in their capacity as a “couple” engaged in a relationship of a sexual character.
Secondly, a phrase such as “does not have the power” is typical of how those who are ashamed of the Church’s teachings often respond to liberal critiques. The implication is that she “would if she could.”
In fact, that the Church of Christ does not lack any of the powers she needs to fulfill her mission for the salvation of souls. She does not bless same-sex couples or unions because it is contrary to her mission to do so.
Paragraphs 7–13, form the first part of section II, entitled ‘The Meaning of Various Blessings’
Paragraph 7 consists of one sentence:
The Holy Father’s above-mentioned response invites us to broaden and enrich the meaning of blessings.
It is followed immediately by:
Blessings are among the most widespread and evolving sacramentals.
The response of Francis mentioned is, specifically, the assertion in the Responsum to the dubia that “same-sex couples” can receive a blessing. Francis is inviting us to change Catholic teaching on the nature of blessings to include “same-sex blessings.”
“Broaden,” “enrich” and “evolving” are euphemistic words to cover over what is really being done – the attempted introduction of a practice contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Paragraph 9 states that:
From a strictly liturgical point of view, a blessing requires that what is blessed be conformed to God’s will, as expressed in the teachings of the Church.
First, we must note the introduction of the idea that this is “a strictly liturgical point of view.” Second, we must note here the curious admission that what the document intends to permit, namely, the blessing of “same-sex couples,” is not in fact in conformity with the teachings of the Church, because same-sex sexual relations are not in conformity with the teaching of the Church.
As “same-sex blessings” are not permissible from this “point of view,” another “point of view” must be found, if they are to become acceptable. This is exactly what the document proceeds to attempt.
Paragraphs 11 contains a passage that is crucially important for creating the impression – for those who want receive such an impression – that the document upholds Catholic teaching. It states:
Basing itself on these considerations, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Explanatory Note to its 2021 Responsum recalls that when a blessing is invoked on certain human relationships by a special liturgical rite, it is necessary that what is blessed corresponds with God’s designs written in creation and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. For this reason, since the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice.
In this passage the author notes, accurately, that the Church considers sexual relations outside of marriage to be morally illicit. But it immediately nullifies the applicability of this statement by specifying that this is “the liturgical understanding of blessing insofar as they are rites officially proposed by the Church.”
Here we see the strategy quite plainly. Approval will be given for such blessings to be carried out, but not by an official liturgical rite. This is the approach that will be developed in the rest of the document.
But this section is not yet finished. Having seemingly asserted the teaching of the Church on the immorality of sexual acts outside marriage in paragraph 11, it then immediately undermines it in paragraph 12:
One must also avoid the risk of reducing the meaning of blessings to this point of view alone, for it would lead us to expect the same moral conditions for a simple blessing that are called for in the reception of the sacraments. Such a risk requires that we broaden this perspective further. Indeed, there is the danger that a pastoral gesture that is so beloved and widespread will be subjected to too many moral prerequisites, which, under the claim of control, could overshadow the unconditional power of God’s love that forms the basis for the gesture of blessing.
In other words, the Catholic doctrine expressed in paragraph 11 is merely a “point of view” which, in fact, poses a danger to the authentic understanding of blessings. Therefore, this “point of view” – Catholic doctrine – needs to be set alongside a new, broader “perspective.” The assertion of Catholic doctrine in paragraph 11 is therefore reduced to a risky and potentially dangerous “point of view” by the end of paragraph 12.
Paragraph 13 then seeks to give this interpretation a “papal” endorsement:
Precisely in this regard, Pope Francis urged us not to ‘lose pastoral charity, which should permeate all our decisions and attitudes’ and to avoid being ‘judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.’ Let us then respond to the Holy Father’s proposal by developing a broader understanding of blessings.
It is very important to understand clearly what is being done here. Catholic teaching is being asserted in paragraph 11 in order that those who are uncomfortable with the document can be reassured by it. But it is entirely emptied of its practical implications by paragraphs 12 and 13.
They have found it necessary that the Catholic doctrine should be stated in order to deceive the faithful. They have also found it necessary that the Catholic doctrine should be undermined in order that a practice contrary to it should be instituted.
Paragraphs 14 -19, a subsection of II, entitled, ‘Blessings in Sacred Scripture’
Paragraph 14 continues the relativistic approach of the preceding section, calling for reflection from “different points of view,” of which, as we have seen above, Catholic doctrine is now just one.
This rest of the section consists mostly of examples of blessings from Sacred Scripture. The purpose is to locate the blessings that are to be introduced in a longer scriptural tradition to give the impression of legitimacy.
Paragraph 19 however reveals that for the author of this document blessings ultimately are to be reduced to modern sociological buzzwords. They are:
[T]ransformed into inclusion, solidarity, and peacemaking. It is a positive message of comfort, care, and encouragement.
Paragraphs 20 – 30, a subsection of section II entitled ‘A Theological-Pastoral Understanding of Blessings’
In this section we see the introduction of a disingenuous and duplicitous naivety about the real motives of those who are introducing these blessings and those who are likely to request them. Paragraph 20 states:
One who asks for a blessing show himself to be in need of God’s saving presence in his life and one who asks for a blessing from the Church recognizes the latter as a sacrament of the salvation that God offers. To seek a blessing in the Church is to acknowledge that the life of the Church springs from the womb of God’s mercy and helps us to move forward, to live better, and to respond to the Lord’s will.
Everyone knows perfectly well that “same-sex blessings,” if they become established, will be sought by many “same-sex couples” who have no intention of changing their lives and who will see the blessing as an approval of the relationship itself. They will not be asking for grace to change their lives to conform to Catholic teaching. This kind of help is already provided by the Church, through the sacrament of penance, through reception of Holy Communion in the state of grace, through the blessing of individuals, through sacramentals, public liturgical worship, spiritual direction, and so on.
What is proposed here is a new blessing, specifically for “couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex,” and it is quite clear to all, both inside and outside the Church, that what is meant by irregular is precisely the lack of conformity to Catholic moral teaching.
Of course, the defenders of this scheme will accuse those who observe this objective reality of being “judgmental” but, nonetheless, they and everyone else are quite aware that this is exactly how things really are.
Paragraph 21 shows the same disingenuous false naivety:
In order to help us understand the value of a more pastoral approach to blessings, Pope Francis urges us to contemplate, with an attitude of faith and fatherly mercy, the fact that ‘when one asks for a blessing, one is expressing a petition for God’s assistance, a plea to live better, and confidence in a Father who can help us live better.’ This request should, in every way, be valued, accompanied, and received with gratitude. People who come spontaneously to ask for a blessing show by this request their sincere openness to transcendence, the confidence of their hearts that they do not trust in their own strength alone, their need for God, and their desire to break out of the narrow confines of this world, enclosed in its limitations.
Nobody is under illusion that many will see in these blessings as an alternative to a marriage ceremony, and they will be presented in this way by many outside the Church, as well as by many who claim to be within.
The document continues, in paragraphs 22-24, with a discourse on the value of private devotions. The purpose of these paragraphs is to stress the importance and value of extra-liturgical rites, in order to establish the status of the “same-sex blessings” that are going to be introduced.
What the author actually does is to disparage private devotions and spontaneous blessings by suggesting that it is acceptable, indeed desirable, for these practices to be less in conformity with the Catholic faith than the Church’s liturgical and sacramental rites.
Paragraph 25 is quite explicit in making this assertion:
The Church, moreover, must shy away from resting its pastoral praxis on the fixed nature of certain doctrinal or disciplinary schemes.
In other words, the Church’s “pastoral praxis” need not be in conformity with her “doctrinal” teaching or her “disciplinary” norms.
The document, quoting Francis, disparages the “doctrinal and disciplinary schemes” of the Church as having a tendency to “lead to ‘a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism.'”
On the contrary, in order to lead souls to eternal bliss, Our Lord Jesus Christ gave to his Church the threefold power of teaching, sanctifying and governing. Doctrine and discipline exist for the benefit of souls. Narcissism and authoritarianism are seen in the arbitrary violation of the order established by God Himself for the salvation of souls.
The document continues with the statement that “when people ask for a blessing, an exhaustive moral analysis should not be placed as a precondition for conferring it.”
This has never, in fact, been any such precondition for receiving any blessing.
It continues by stating:
For, those seeking a blessing should not be required to have prior moral perfection.
The Church has never required “prior moral perfection” for any of her sacraments or sacramentals. On the contrary, the Church was instituted to lead sinners to salvation. In everything she does the Church assumes we are sinners, and that none of us attain “moral perfection” in this life.
The purpose of this misleading assertion is to distract from the real distinction which matters, which is the distinction between the state of grace – friendship with God despite moral imperfection – and the state of mortal sin.
By creating a false and impossible precondition – “prior moral perfection” – it wishes to obscure the reality that all men and women do exist, in any given moment, in one of two states – grace and sin (original or mortal).
Paragraph 26 makes it quite clear that the obscuring of this objective reality is the approach being adopted. It asserts that there are situations “that are morally unacceptable from an objective point of view” but that those within them – i.e. same-sex couples in this context – cannot be considered sinners:
[P]astoral charity requires us not to treat simply as ‘sinners’ those whose guilt or responsibility may be attenuated by various factors affecting subjective imputability.
It is true that subjective factors can affect culpability. However, subjective culpability is something to be assessed in private and is no ground for giving any form of public approval to objectively immoral states.
Paragraph 27 seeks “papal” endorsement for this position, quoting a catechesis from Francis. The paragraph equates the blessing of same-sex couples with blessing people in prison or rehabilitation groups. This is a false equivalence. All human beings without exception can receive a blessing if they are well disposed. There is no need for any new document to enable a person with a homosexual inclination to seek out a blessing. This document is specifically about “same-sex couples” being blessed as couples and here the parallel fails. No prisoner is blessed in such a way as to confirm their crime. The real parallel would be two thieves seeking a blessing as a partnership in theft.
Paragraphs 28 and 29 discuss of the wide variety of situations in which blessings might be sought. The idea is clearly to normalize the idea that anybody can receive a blessing, but none of the examples given are analogous to the blessing of individuals in their capacity of being united together in the commission of grave sin.
Paragraph 28 refers to the practice of blessing God, as in praising him. It states that “no one can be prevented from this act of giving thanks.” It connects this explicitly with people living sinful lives:
No one can be prevented from this act of giving thanks, and each person—even if he or she lives in situations that are not ordered to the Creator’s plan—possesses positive elements for which we can praise the Lord.
The implication here seems to be that because no-one can be prevented from giving thanks for the positive elements in their lives, so too no-one can be prevented from receiving a blessing for the positive elements in their lives.
This, of course, is suggesting that “same-sex couples” can be blessed because of the good elements in their lives. This repeats an idea included in documents of the synod on the family and in Amoris Laetitia.
The problem is that it is precisely the thing which gives identity to the “same-sex couple” which is being proposed as the cause of a blessing being sought. If it were not the couple itself being blessed as a couple then, as we have said, there is already a provision for such blessings in the praxis of the Church. Every human being without exception can be blessed and thanks given for the truly positive elements of their lives. But what is being proposed in this document is the blessing of a couple as an entity united by sin.
That the author of the document regards same-sex unions as having some reality and value in and of themselves is seen clearly in paragraph 30, which states that:
[P]astoral prudence and wisdom—avoiding all serious forms of scandal and confusion among the faithful—may suggest that the ordained minister join in the prayer of those persons who, although in a union that cannot be compared in any way to a marriage, desire to entrust themselves to the Lord and his mercy, to invoke his help, and to be guided to a greater understanding of his plan of love and of truth.
In this paragraph the “union” is identified as having some reality, even if it cannot be compared to marriage. It is indeed, according to this document, a “union” in which certain persons are joined and who can, together as a couple rather than as individuals, have an “ordained minister join in the prayer.” But prayer for what? The document does not make an intention to live according to the moral law a prerequisite for such a blessing. Once again, it is important to avoid naivety, and consider what is actually going to take place.
Paragraphs 31 – 41, this is section III entitled, ‘Blessings of Couples in Irregular Situations and of Couples of the Same Sex’
Paragraph 31 contains the essential passage of the document:
Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex, the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage.
It may be noted that this passage seeks to fulfill both ends of the document that were identified in the introduction to this analysis: i) to provide permission for “ordained ministers” to proceed with the blessing of “same-sex couples” and (ii) to provide sufficient texts of an orthodox character with which critics of the text can be countered and silenced, and which will placate those who wish to believe that nothing has been changed.
The paragraph continues with more disingenuous naivety, restating that which nobody believes, which is that the recipients of these blessings will all have, or will generally have, the following disposition:
In such cases, a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit.
A person with such a disposition would not present himself as a member of a “couple” in an immoral relationship to receive a blessing.
The paragraph continues:
These forms of blessing express a supplication that God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his Spirit—what classical theology calls “actual grace”—so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love.
The relationships here spoken of are sinful relationships. God will grant actual grace in order to lead people to reform their lives, which will necessarily involve the termination of the relationship which is, in this case, the cause of the blessing being received. A sinful relationship cannot grow in fidelity to the Gospel, it is a contradiction in terms.
Likewise, paragraphs 32 – 34 seek to obscure the fundamental problem. They speak of the grace of God working in all lives, that we are called to trust in God even amidst our weaknesses, and other similar truths. But what they fail to indicate in any place is that this requires repentance from sin. The text wishes to give the impression that these blessings will bring people closer to God, without recognizing the change of life which the gospel requires.
Paragraph 32, for example states:
[T]he Church welcomes all who approach God with humble hearts, accompanying them with those spiritual aids that enable everyone to understand and realize God’s will fully in their existence.
This is certainly true, but those “spiritual aids” be they sacraments, sacramentals, or other goods of the Church, require each individual to turn to God with repentance. To persist in sin – for example as a member of a “same-sex couple” – is to adopt a disposition contrary to that required to benefit from the church’s “spiritual aids.”
Paragraph 35 emphasizes that these blessings may be performed “spontaneously” even though “not found in the Book of Blessings.” Paragraph 36 emphasizes that it is the wish of Francis that these “these non-ritualized blessings” take place. It emphasizes they should not be a liturgical rite, but for an erroneous reason:
[S]uch a ritualization would constitute a serious impoverishment because it would subject a gesture of great value in popular piety to excessive control, depriving ministers of freedom and spontaneity in their pastoral accompaniment of people’s lives.
This is precisely the kind of “smoke screen” identified above. The real reason why such blessings could never be a liturgical rite is that they are contrary to the Catholic faith. This is an example of the document trying to disarm the orthodox response from the beginning, if nothing is written down, it more difficult to connect Francis and his associates directly to any particular blessing given “spontaneously” – yet they are ensuring that “ministers” will engage in “same-sex blessings” with a “freedom and spontaneity” that will not be subject to ecclesiastical “control.”
Paragraphs 37-39 further establish this approach. Paragraph 39 also asserts:
In any case, precisely to avoid any form of confusion or scandal, when the prayer of blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation, even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding. The same applies when the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple.
This text is provided to give reassurance to those who are concerned by the introduction of these blessings, but we must note what is actually occurring. The author is acknowledging precisely that the blessing is being requested by a couple in an immoral relationship, or as it is euphemistically referred to, “an irregular situation.” There is no suggestion here that there is any moral danger attached to being in such a relationship, or any need to reform one’s life, or risk of scandal inherent in the blessing of such a couple. Once again, the only thing that is presented as a problem is the importance of not confusing being in “a same-sex couple” with marriage.
The paragraph, number 40, provides another example of deliberate disingenuous naivety. It states:
[T]here 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.
The author knows full well that these blessings will be used to legitimize same-sex relationships. This is his clear intention.
In paragraph 41, by insisting there will be no further regulations, the document gives clergy carte blanche to do whatever they wish:
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 final paragraphs of the document, numbers 42-45, are entitled, “The Church is the Sacrament of God’s Infinite Love.” Their purpose is to locate the newly established blessings as rooted in the love and mercy of God. Yet in the context of a document that eschews any call for repentance, they ring hollow.
Conclusion
Fiducia Supplicans has as its intention the introduction of blessings of “same-sex couples.” It also attempts to provide sufficient texts of an orthodox character to placate those who wish to believe that nothing has been changed. It is a fundamentally deceptive text, which follows the course typical of the Modernists who, as Pope St. Pius X warned, “seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful.”
The blessings of “same-sex couples” are wholly inadmissible in the Catholic Church, as she teaches that all sexual acts outside of marriage are gravely sinful and that nothing can be done to acknowledge the legitimacy of the relationships in which they take place or approve of them in any way at all.
The Catholic Church was established to save sinners and calls us all to repentance and to new life in Christ.
Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation. (Acts 2:37-39)