Here is the article from LifeSiteNews. A signed statement by a set of “clergymen, scholars and authors” asks the Bishops to refuse to implement FS in their dioceses and further asks the Bishops to ask the Pope to withdraw the document. “The signatories address the bishops and cardinals of the Catholic Church, asking them to forbid such blessings in their respective dioceses and to ask Pope Francis to withdraw the document altogether.”
This public document is the latest in a series of similar signed petitions, documents, and declarations, each openly opposed to the decisions of the Roman Pontiff. The past documents opposed Pope Francis in various ways, including accusing the Pope of the canonical delict of heresy, as well as accusing him of various grave errors on doctrine or discipline. Such petitions do not express faith in Christ and His Church; they do not express filial love or obedience.
Instead, in the current statement, as is the case with past similar petitions, the signatories put themselves above the Pope and the body of Bishops. For they presume to instruct (badly) the Bishops on doctrine, presume to direct the Bishops in their use of their authority over discipline, and presume to judge, condemn, and correct the Roman Pontiff. These signatories have no such role.
The signatories’ judgments about FS are fallible and can err to any extent. Their understanding of doctrine and discipline is fallible and can err to any extent. And they have no ability to exercise the Magisterium, as they are only priests, deacons, and laity, not Bishops. Yet they write this statement as if their assertions are certainly true, and as any contrary were certainly false. The statement expresses an implicit presumption of infallibility, which the signatories do not have.
FS reaffirms the traditional teaching of the Church on marriage; this assertion participates in the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium. FS also teaches on the subject of blessings, non-infallibly and largely without objection. However, the document is mainly on the subject of discipline, on the circumstances in which the blessings of the Church is authorized. This latter point is a judgment of the prudential order. The faithful might disagree, without fault. And the Pope has clearly indicated that Bishops may judge that certain blessings should not be given, in a circumstance where this might lead to confusion.
The position of some is that FS goes too far in allowing blessings of couples who are apparently unrepentant from objectively grave sins, such as homosexual acts and adultery or sex outside of marriage. Certainly, any sinner — even one who is unrepentant from actual mortal sins of any type, extent, and number — can be blessed by the Church. If you disagree, you fall into the error of Pelagianism. We do not approach Christ, repentant, asking Him for grace and other blessings. That is heresy. Instead, grace is before, during, and after every good act of ours. A person does not repent first, and then seek grace; rather, God grants prevenient grace first, then the sinner may cooperate with subsequent grace, followed by repentance and various prayers and good works in grace.
For while we were yet unrepentant sinners, Christ died for us. Since every grace is from the Cross, we do nothing supernaturally good prior to grace, prior to the sacrifice by which Christ died for us. The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is logically prior to every act of repentance, every cooperation with grace, every granting of prevenient grace, to anyone and everyone. The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is prior to the immaculate conception; without that sacrifice, Mary would not have had any grace at all. And the same for all of us.
Imagine the worst unrepentant sinner. Such a person has received immense blessings from Christ, including that He died for that sinner; that the sinner was given and did receive prevenient grace; that the sinner was offered and may have cooperated to some extent with subsequent grace; that the sinner received many blessings from Providence and by the granting of graces to persons around that sinner. God greatly blesses unrepentant sinners, no matter how sinful and unrepentant they may be.
So it cannot be said that sinners must first repent, and later request grace. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in principle with blessing a sinner, an unrepentant sinner, a couple who have sinned together and are unrepentant, or anyone else. However, the circumstances may make such a blessing imprudent, due to misunderstandings and subsequent harm. A gay couple might think that this blessing from the Church is an approval of their sinful relationship, and others observing might also misunderstand. A divorced and remarried couple might think that they do not need an annulment, or that this blessing substitutes for an annulment and valid marriage ceremony. These blessings on unrepentant couples might be seen as a step towards changes in Church teaching, changes contrary to perennial and infallible doctrine.
However, the document FS allows blessings of individuals in many different circumstances. And some very conservative priests have said that they never withhold a blessing from anyone who sincerely asks, even if they might be caught up in some ongoing sinful habits or behaviors.
The document does not need to be withdrawn. It contains a reaffirmation of marriage; permission for blessings in many different circumstances, and a caution to withhold blessings if these might cause confusion. I suggest that a future Pope might adjust this discipline, to avoid confusion and to clarify the Church’s condemnation of certain grave sins. The Pope has reached out to sinners, rightly so, with leniency and mercy. But we know that some sinners have already abused the mercy of God by accepting the blessing with no intention to repent. So a future Pope may say that this lenience has ended, and these sinners must repent, or they will be denied participation in the sacramental life of the Church.
But the petition asking the Bishops to accept instruction and direction from the signatories is schismatic. It proposes that a group of clergy and laity can usurp the role of the Roman Pontiff as the head of the Body of Bishops; it proposes that a mere petition, signed by an odd assortment of non-Bishops, should have greater weight that a document of the Apostolic See. The petition also contains false teaching and various false statements.
Filial Submission to the Magisterium
First, let’s review the true teaching of the Church on the submission of intellect and will owed by the faithful to the decisions of the Magisterium, even when non-infallible.
Vatican I, Dei Filius, chapter 3:
“1. Since human beings are totally dependent on God as their Creator and Lord, and since created reason is completely subject to uncreated truth, we are obliged to yield to God, the Revealer, the full submission of intellect and of will, by faith.”
“2. This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the Catholic Church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.”
The above teachings in #1 and #2 explain the most fundamental error of those who accuse the Pope, the body of Bishops, or any Ecumenical Council of grave errors or grave failings of faith. They wish all things of religion to be subjected to their own intellect and will, and they therefore refuse to submit their intellect and will to the teachings of the Shepherds of the Church, in faith. They have rejected faith itself, and have tried to substitute either their own mind and will, or the collective minds and wills of a subculture. Thus, they refuse any and all attempts by the Church to correct them, as they have put themselves above the entire Church, to judge Her and even to condemn Her. But the teaching and authority of the Church is from Christ, and He will be their judge.
Errors of the Petition against FS
Here again is a link to the article and petition.
“Never in the history of the Catholic Church has a document of the Roman Magisterium experienced such a strong rejection.” — False. Vatican I’s teaching on Papal Infallibility led to a schism by a group calling themselves the “old Catholic Church”. Vatican II led to much controversy and to a schism by the SSPX. Humanae Vitae was rebuked by the “Winnipeg Statement” of the Canadian Bishops, and HV has also been widely contradicted by the use of contraception by many Catholics.
Also, FS is not primarily of the Magisterium, as it mainly concerns discipline. And since discipline is changeable, the faithful can mildly disagree without fault. The error, therefore, of those who strongly reject FS is their rejection of papal authority per se, and their refusal to give that authority submission of will and intellect. They assert a badly distorted understanding of doctrine and discipline, and refuse any submission to the Roman Pontiff, instead trying to correct and direct him.
The petition claims that FS “has caused so much scandal in the Church”. There is in truth very little scandal to giving blessings somewhat too widely or too readily, especially since FS contains permission to refuse blessings that might cause confusion or scandal.
The petition claims: “As is widely known, a relevant part of the world episcopate has practically rejected it, due to its evident break with Scripture and the Tradition of the Church. Twenty episcopal conferences, dozens of individual prelates, and even cardinals invested with the highest positions, such as Cardinal Müller and Cardinal Sarah, have expressed an unequivocal condemnatory judgment.”
False. The Bishops who declined to give certain blessings to certain persons or couples did not state that FS breaks with Scripture or Tradition, but rather stated that blessings in their dioceses or nations might cause confusion or other harm. It is also false to claim that those Bishops who disagreed with the extent of permission to give blessings “expressed an unequivocal condemnatory judgment”. That is a blatant lie. Only a few schismatic and heretical Bishops, especially archbishop Vigano, have expressed unequivocal condemnation. The vast majority of Bishops who declined to bless certain couples have given reasons related to circumstances in their dioceses or nations.
The petition claims that the praxis of FS contradicts magisterial teaching on marriage. That is not the case. First, FS reaffirms traditional Catholic doctrine on marriage. Also, FS counsels that blessings not be given if the faithful might be harmed by confusion on that very point. Discretion is given to Bishops and priests in this regard. Then FS also institutes rules against formalizing blessings of couples and against any practice that might confuse such a blessing with approval of a relationship.
Certainly some clergy have already misused FS in certain ways. But these clergy misuse the Gospel, various teachings of the Church, and commit other offenses. FS did not prompt their misbehavior.
The petition claims: “The document effectively attempts to introduce a separation between doctrine and liturgy on the one hand, and pastoral practice on the other.” False. Blessings can always be given to sinners, based on the doctrine I explained above on grace and salvation. So the praxis of FS is in accord with doctrine. Then FS asks for prudence in its application, which the petition inadvertently admits has occurred in many cases. Therefore, no separation between doctrine and discipline is intended or effected.
The petition claims: “The blessing of a couple (whether “liturgical” or “pastoral”) is, so to speak, a natural sign. The concrete gesture says something naturally, and therefore has a natural, immediate communicative effect, which cannot be artificially changed by the verbal caveats of the document. A blessing as such, in the universal language of humanity, always implies an approval of what is being blessed.”
The above claim is nonsensical, and has no basis in Tradition, Scripture, or magisterial teachings at any time.
The petition says: “Let us remember that the traditional doctrine on the subject must be considered infallible, since it is unequivocally confirmed by Scripture and Tradition, a universal and uninterrupted tradition, ubique et semper. And it must be remembered that this is a doctrine of natural law, which does not allow for any change.”
The petition does not present any traditional doctrine on the subject of blessings. And the point of view of the signatories and the petition is not infallible. Above I wrote that this petition implicitly presumes infallibility; and here the petition explicitly and falsely claims infallibility. Instead, the petition presents a confused at times nonsensical explanation of claimed doctrine, without reference to anything in Tradition or Scripture. Such an explanation on the discipline of blessings is not even a tenable theological opinion; it is absolutely false that such an explanation as found in the petition is a presentation of anything infallible.
The petition claims: “The message that is effectively launched, and that the people of God, and the entire world, will inevitably register and are already registering is that: The Catholic Church has finally evolved, and now accepts homosexual unions, and, more generally, extramarital unions.”
False. FS clearly affirms the traditional infallible doctrine of the Church on marriage, thereby rejecting any approval for same-sex unions and heterosexual unions or legal marriages apart from the Sacrament of Marriage.
The petition states: “In light of the above we fervently implore you to:
“(1) Follow the brave example of so many brother bishops around the world: please forbid immediately the application of this document in your diocese.
“(2) Please ask directly the Pope to urgently withdraw this unfortunate document, which is in contradiction with both Scripture and the universal and uninterrupted Tradition of the Church and which clearly produces a serious scandal.”
This petition is schismatic, as it usurps the authority of the Pope as Head of the Body of Bishops, directing the Bishops to obey the petition and its eclectic group of signatories (some of whom were already in open schism and heresy against the Apostolic See). It is also false to claim that the document contradicts Scripture or Tradition.
Ronald L Conte Jr
the reproach of Christ 
The demonization of FS is not helpful. I expect new development, but not in terms of cancelling FS rather issuing a new document that will update the old one. As it happened with Traditionis Custodes of pope Francis following Summorum Pontificum of pope Benedict. There wasn’t any cancellation of the first document, there was a new update, and I guess it is not the final one. Both documents are not ex cathedra. What will the next pope decree is still too early to say. I will not enter once more in discussion with imaginary opponents on the subject of the blessing of gays, as I did before in length giving historic evidence. I would only say here that the existence of gay people throughout the Church history has never led to a schism or to banning them from the Church, rather to including them inside the Church, including by early prearranged marriages and vocations. And that in a much more conservative society and clergy than today’s traditionalists are. We didn’t have burning of gays in the Middle ages. Only then everyone together with the whole society were much more devoted and willing to spend life in service of the Lord, while now we live in a secular society.
There is what to be expected from the Vatican, both about those blessings and on many other issues as well. Sometimes it seems Vatican walks behind the events in the secular world rather than leading forward the faithful.
That being said, the revolt that is being organized around FC, is not something we want in the Church. Let also notice that the much trumped African bishops’ unanimous stance is based on the political situation in the African continent where in many countries the gay relations (not marriages) are punished with prison and somewhere even with death. You can check which those countries are.
Such a revolt led by the US traditionalists and mass supported by the African countries, but not supported by a number of catholic European countries (Ireland voted for the gay marriage), has the potential to reach to the election of two popes. If the things are not settled during pope Francis’ uneasy pontificate that is a pontificate of unity. FC could go much farther that it didn’t exactly because of the unity with the African bishops and the traditionalist priests and faithful in the USA. Hopefully they will understand that antagonizing and demonizing cardinals who stay behind FS, and indirectly or directly the pope is not the way of the unity. Or they already rally as in US election campaign for the next conclave. They’d better realize that the 5 percent traditionalists in the countries with majority of cardinals in the developed West cannot lead to the election of a pope “Pius XIII” that will return the things before Vatican I. They want nothing less than that, I heard them, I read their blogs, I talked to them. The rest 90 percent of faithful and cardinals don’t want to revert back the history. FS is a fine line in the middle. Could that line be preserved or we will have Avignon 2, is the question every priest and bishop and the faithful supporting them should be asking themselves right now.
Dear Ron,
I think your point about the implied Pelagianism within the petition is quite insightful. You are right to note the importance of Rom 5: 8, which tells us that “while we were still sinners Christ died for us.” If sinners can receive the blessing of Christ’s death, why can they not receive informal blessings from priests? Ironically, I think there is an implied Jansenism in the way some critics of Fiducia Supplicans have reacted to no. 31 of the declaration. Some say it’s wrong to for FS 31 to invoke a blessing 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.” One person I know says that there cannot be anything “true, good, and humanly valid” in a sinful relationship. The Church, though, recognizes natural virtues in unbelievers and sinners. In 1567, Pope Pius V censured the error of the proto-Jansenist, Michael Baius, who claimed that “all the works of the unbelievers are sins and the virtues of the philosophers are vices” (Denz.-H 1925). In 1713, Pope Clement XI censured the view of the Jansenist, Pasquier Quesnel, who claimed that a soul “that has lost God and his grace” cannot do “any good work” (Denz.-H 2401). Quesnel also erronously claimed that “the prayer of sinners is a new sin, and what God grants them is a new judgment against them” (Denz.-H 2459). When we recognize our own sinfulness and our own need for God’s grace, I think we will be less reluctant to deny blessings upon those who are in sinful relations but beg God for help. Yes, we need to avoid confusion and scandal, but we should also avoid denying simple blessings to sinners who beg for God’s grace.
Well said. Thank you, Robert.
Yeoman presents some valid points. It seems strange that in just a few weeks after its publication, a whole group of Catholics from the continent of Africa have been exempted. I see it as a ritual because the bishops and priests are being told exactly how they are to do it. Pope Francis should have simply said that the Church should pray for all who ask for prayers, instead of telling these bishops – the Apostles – how to.
Personally, I wish the Pope had not issued it, and I’m of the opinion that all the focus on homosexuality, as opposed to same sex attraction, is mostly a Western Culture thing which misses the point that it’s largely a culturally Western. I fear that too much attention is being given to issues that are, for most of the world, not really issues. That aside, FS certainly doesn’t state anything in terms of conduct that wasn’t already the case, and it doesn’t change any doctrine. The letter certainly went too far, which brings me to my question.
Is it even possible for the Papacy to “withdraw” a declaration? I’m not a theologian, but that doesn’t really seem possible to me. It can clarify, either now or in the future, but it can’t, I don’t think, actually withdraw it. That seems to me, although perhaps I’m in error, a radical failure to have an understanding of such things.
Any decision of discipline can be changed. All the Old Testament disciplines were dispensed by Christ and His Church. The Latin Mass has been largely replaced by the Novus Ordo Mass. So while doctrine cannot change, discipline can. Thus, FS can be changed to a different discipline.
All this blowback against Pope Francis is beyond my comprehension. If I can understand the differences of Blessings to an individual and not same sex unions, I would surely think priests, deacons and laity would understand. Are they all misinformed? – Do they think they are truly right and the Vicar of Christ is wrong?
Are they looking to usurp the hierarchy of the Church?
I do not have any answers but only questions.
I am befuddled as to why this is taken place just as I am perplexed that Satan and his fallen angels rebelled against God. To be in the Glory of God and then attempt to be an equal or above God is unconscionable. I am guessing here but it seems human beings have some characteristics of supernatural beings.
Dear Ron,
Thank you very much for this article. You are correct to note that the underlying problem with the petition is a lack of filial submission to the Magisterium. You are also correct in noting that the petition makes some false claims.
For example, the petition states the following:
“The blessing of a couple (whether ‘liturgical’ or ‘pastoral’) is, so to speak, a natural sign. The concrete gesture says something naturally, and therefore has a natural, immediate communicative effect, which cannot be artificially changed by the verbal caveats of the document. A blessing as such, in the universal language of humanity, always implies an approval of WHAT is being blessed.”
I put “WHAT” in capital letters to show that the peition wrongly assumes that the union or the relationship is being blessed. Both Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernández, however, have it made very clear that the blessing is on the persons not the union. The signers of the petition continue to misrepresent what Fiducia Supplicans says.
It’s also false to claim that every blessing involves an approval of what those being blessed do. As we know, Jesus instructs us to bless those who curse us in Lk 6:28, and St. Paul tells us to bless those who persecute us in Rom 12:14. Certainly, Jesus and St. Paul are not approving cursing and persecuting in these passages.
Thank you again for your article and for defending the Magisterium.