Here is a link to the Newest clarification of Fiducia Supplicans by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Highlights: the DDF distinguishes between blessing a couple versus blessing a union of a couple. The blessing authorized by the DDF and Pope Francis is not a blessing on any type of union. The DDF also rejected claims that this blessing is heresy or blasphemous or contrary to any doctrine.
In addition, the DDF stated that in some nations this blessing cannot prudentially be given to same-sex couples, as the laws there expose these individual to harsh penalties. However, other than such cases, the DDF rejected the idea that any Bishop can exclude his diocese from this type of blessing on any and all persons.
My point of view: Pope Francis is reaching out to sinners in the most lenient and merciful way possible. He is following the example of the father who, in seeing the Prodigal Son on his way home, went out to meet him partway. He is extending an extraordinary benefit without regard to someone’s sins. But the time will come when the Church, likely under the next conservative Pope, will say to those who benefited from the decisions of Pope Francis on blessings, Communion, Confession: “You’ve received these benefits under extraordinary leniency and mercy, now produce the fruits of repentance.” These leniencies will be withdrawn, and replaced with a stricter discipline. And if those who benefited from the previous leniency are not repentant, they will no longer be able to receive blessings, Communion, or Confession (unless they meet the usual conditions, of course).
I do think that FS is well-intentioned, but imprudent. We all know what sinners are like in the Church, and that some persons will take advantage of this blessing, violating the limits imposed, and falsely claim that the Church is now approving of their sins. That is how unrepentant sinners think. So it looks to me like FS is very temporary.
the reproach of Christ 
“some persons will take advantage of this blessing, violating the limits imposed, and falsely claim that the Church is now approving of their sins” – this is already happening unfortunately. FS should have never been released.
Ron & Ben,
I could be wrong but my understanding for those countries with laws persecuting gay persons can receive blessings for their individual souls. It would have to be done in private so as not to jeopardize the well-being of the individual and/or clergy. I grant you there is a risk in performing such blessings just as their is risk for underground religious gatherings in those countries prohibiting such activities.
Priests can always bless sincere individuals. Even very conservative priests who are against FS will bless almost anyone, as long as it is an apparently sincere request.
Ron,
It is very clear to me that the DDF and the clarification speaks for itself with no further explanation needed. Pope Francis shows mercy for all sinners. All the Contrarians will never agree with Pope Francis on this topic. I hope the Vatican will say – There is no more discussion, the DDF speaks for itself. I do not believe the next Pope will reverse or give further explanations in attempting to sway the Contrarians. The optics of any reversal could be much more harmful to the church. Yes, there are sinners who will take advantage and use this as a cause to facilitate their own ideas contrary to the disciplines of the church. In general, the Catholic Laity does not have the education to discuss topics as this and should just say – The Vicar of Christ has spoken.
I also don’t think that the next pope will reverse this or other document. Because of many factors including the psychology of the West. Not everyone in the developed West is homosexual, but the idea that homosexuals should have equal rights is quite deep rooted in the West.
I am surprised though at today’s All African declaration that no blessing to gays would be given anywhere in Africa. Isn’t That contrary to all we discussed here? So when it comes to the liberal side, then it is ok to be restricted, to be interpreted, to be diminished in order to keep unity. But when the other side speaks, in this case all African bishops with clearly political motivated message and not so much personal conscience of each and every bishop (did cardinal Turcson sign the document too? I can’t believe it), then they have not only the right to disobey the pope, they are exalted as a model of the entire Church. Even more – they are shown as the True church the only one that should be followed. Exactly what cardinal Fernandes said should not be done with the German way, so the Church must be one – in Africa, in Russia (?!?) etc. So double standard again for Africa this time? I think the Vatican should equally address the African disobedience. The African bishops do not have the power to dictate, as the Western bishops do not have the power to dictate. Or…we are talking already of two churches, remains to say which one is true and “ours”.
Instead, I would prefer the pope to sit on the throne of Peter, to open a big book, and to say: “We (the pope speaks in plural for himself) in the name of the Risen Lord, with the power of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and with our own power, invoking the Petrine infallibility on this matter being with equal level as the dogmas, have decided in prayer and meditation before the Lord, and now declare to the entire people of God that…so and so” … to bless or not bless, whatever it is. I will accept it.
The latest clarification of DDF makes the things even more messed. I do not see a clear position of the Vatican and even less of the pope with infallibility on the issue. If the Vatican’s DDF would change the document’s interpretation left and right, on one hand would allow blessings and on the other hand would rebuke the performance of such blessing as it occurred recently, and would allow the individual bishops and countries to decide how to implement it (African countries are banned by their civil laws for example, just the opposite from the status quo in Western Europe and USA), then why the need of this document in first place? To “unify” the Church as the prefect said, or rather to divide it?
And one more thing to consider: DDF, the former CDF, the former Holy Office, the former Holy Inquisition, may be a bit out of touch. It is nothing dogmatic or sacrilegious to talk about that. Maybe it is a time to reconsider should the oldest institution on Earth that is the Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ on Peter, still keep the historically heavy burdened office that doesn’t date back to St Peter not even to the early centuries? I remember the case when a former prefect of then CDF lashed out against Medjugorje backing his arguments with: “I talked to him” (i.e. the pope), and then the pope had to disagree. It is just absurd the controversies coming out of DDF. It somehow wants to coin doctrinal documents with nearly papal infallibility that all should follow, but in fact those documents are not bearing such infallibility. Do we need that controversy? I prefer three lines statement from the pope bearing the papal infallibility so “Rome Has Spoken, the Case is Closed”. Even if it is not what I would like to hear, but it will be something clear to be followed. What is clear now to follow? It has been said already that individual countries and bishops are not obliged to follow it. Understand- the Third World will not follow it, and maybe a significant portion of the Developed West. Pardon me? Is that ambiguity the sought result and why? And if it is not the sought result, we should have a resignation by now, even better – closing the entire office. Peter did well without it, also St Linus, St Cletus and the rest. No burning of heretics either. Sorry but let face it: several centuries ago that same office burned people for their beliefs. Now it comes to tell us: gays could be blessed but actually gay couples could not be blessed, bishops should not deny such blessings but bishops in Africa could deny such blessing and all bishops should decide to accept or not accept the document, but they cannot deny the blessing of an individual. Something is very wrong and it is not wrong OUR understanding of that mess.
Why call it a blessing but then state it is not a ‘liturgical’ blessing. Rather, in my opinion, the document should state a Priest should instead pray that the Holy Spirit descend on a couple in an irregular situation. The word blessing has caused such confusion to Catholics.
No, saying that the Holy Spirit should descend… seems like a reference to Pentecost, which is related to the Sacrament of Confirmation, or baptism, in which the indwelling of the Trinity begins. It would make the blessing more, rather than less. Priests have always given informal blessings upon the request of the faithful. This well-intentioned attempt to extend these blessings as much as possible to sinners is perhaps imprudent. Some sinners are already taking advantage so as to distort the meaning of the blessing.
Ron, I hope and pray the Church cracks down on regular Catholics in the pews. My deacon is a convert and he can’t believe what he sees. Cradle Catholics, who had the Church handed to them on a silver platter, then proceed to pass judgement on everyone else. How convenient for them that contraception is a private sin! There should be rigorous periodic adult renewals and each time it happens, mixed groups of adults – single, divorced, married, “married”, whichever – should all be confronted with the Church’s inconvenient truths.
Yes, well said. I don’t approve of the all-too-common attitude of pointing out grave sins and others and pushing them out of the Church, while ignoring one’s own grave sins. As long as sinners are repentant, they should be welcome. All Are Welcome? All repentant sinners are welcome.
Thank you, Ron. Your response is helpful. Let’s pray for this Bishop from Peru. I hope he will come to trust more in the indefectibility of the Church and the Apostolic See. He also needs to read Fiducia Supplicans in a more accurate way even if he thinks it is imprudent.
Dear Ron,
The January 4th statement of Cardinal Fernández recognized that even informal blessings of those in irregular unions might not be prudent or appropriate in some cultures. It’s too bad this recognition was not present in Fiducia Supplicans itself. I hope, though, that the January 4th statement will help to offset some episcopal statements that, in my opinion, are hyperbolic and misleading. For example, a bishop from Peru claims that the blessings envisioned by FS directly contradict divine revelation: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2024/01/this-document-damages-communion-of.html. Scripture, though, instructs us to bless those who curse us and persecute us (Lk 6:28 and Rom 12:14). Certainly, Scripture is not instructing us to bless cursing and persecuting. It’s one thing for bishops to claim that FS is imprudent or inappropriate for their culture. It’s something else to claim that a document affirmed by the Roman Pontiff contradicts divine revelation. Would this not be an indirect way of accusing Pope Francis of heresy? Or am I reading too much into the Bishop’s statement?
The bishop’s statement is hyperbolic and on some points false. And I don’t think any Pope can damage “the communion of the Church”, nor issue a teaching or discipline that would “directly and seriously contradict Divine Revelation and the uninterrupted doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church”. This is contrary to the indefectibility of the Church and the charism of truth and never-failing faith. I should also point out that the bishop claims that these blessings are “invoked over an objectively sinful union,” while FS and clarifications reject blessing sinful unions. But I don’t think the bishop goes far enough to conclude that the Pope is being accused of heresy. Divine Revelation is material dogma, but it is not clear if by “uninterrupted doctrine and practice” the bishop meant that this material dogma has been confirmed by the magisterium as formal dogma, the contrary of which is heresy.