Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun has criticized some of Pope Francis’ responses to five dubia that he and four other cardinals sent him ahead of the Synod on Synodality, saying among other criticisms that the Pope’s guidance on the blessing of same-sex unions is “pastorally untenable.”
In an Oct. 12 statement posted on his website, the bishop emeritus of Hong Kong, who signed the dubia sent to the Pope on July 11, said the Pope’s responses, which were sent a day later and which the Vatican made public on Oct. 2, “were not precise responses and did not resolve the doubts,” prompting him to issue a statement of his own “so that the faithful understand why the five of us did not find them adequate as answers.”
In Paragraph (g) of the Pope’s response to the second dubium, which asked whether same-sex blessings could ever be allowed “without betraying revealed doctrine,” Francis said, “canon law should not and cannot cover everything” and that “practical discernment” would be necessary “in particular circumstances.”
Such a response, Cardinal Zen said in his statement, was “pastorally untenable,” adding, “How can the Church, in such an important matter, leave the people without a clear rule and trust individual discernment? Isn’t this how a chaos of casuistry very dangerous for souls will break out?”
In his statement, he also questioned other parts of the response on same-sex blessings, saying the cardinals were “astonished” by the Pope quoting from his post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) to assert that a same-sex union is akin to marriage between a man and a woman only “in a partial and analogous way.”
“Equally difficult,” Cardinal Zen said, was where that paragraph “allows certain forms of blessing of homosexual unions,” to which he asked: “Doesn’t such a union imply sexual activity between people of the same sex, which is clearly sinful, just as any sexual activity outside of legitimate marriage is sinful?”
He criticized other aspects of the Pope’s response to this dubium, such as elevating the importance of “tenderness” to homosexuals in a same-sex union while relegating objective truth to being “only” one expression of charity towards them.
“In fact, we are convinced that with understanding and tenderness we must also present to them the objective truth that homosexual activity is a sin, that it is contrary to God’s plan of love,” Cardinal Zen observed. “We must also encourage them to a metanoia in the Church and trust in the help of God to carry their heavy cross on the path to eternal happiness.”
The Pope’s response to this dubium was read by media across the world as an indicator of his openness to accepting same-sex blessings.
Cardinal Zen joined Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, Juan Sandoval Íñiguez and Robert Sarah in sending the dubia as a means of obtaining clarity on topics relating to doctrinal development, the blessing of same-sex unions, the authority of the Synod on Synodality, women’s ordination, and sacramental absolution.
The five cardinals all found the Pope’s responses to be unclear and imprecise, and so they issued reformulated dubia on Aug. 21 aimed at eliciting clear “Yes” and “No” answers.
The Pope has yet to respond to those questions.
The cardinal said that due to “the time pressure,” he did not consult the other four cardinals about his Oct. 12 response, adding that he was therefore solely “personally responsible for this initiative….”
Regarding the first dubium — whether divine Revelation should be reinterpreted according to the times — he said he agreed with most of the Pope’s response. The Pope answered that divine Revelation is “immutable and always binding” but also matures, with some aspects becoming more explicit. This was acceptable, Cardinal Zen said, “but not to the point of denying what was stated before by the Magisterium,” and he drew attention to St. John Henry Newman’s writings on development of doctrine.
Cardinal Zen questioned the Pope’s example of how the Church’s teaching on slavery had changed, his assertion that the Church must constantly discern what is essential or secondary for salvation, and what he says in his response about “situating” truths within the “totality of the Church’s teaching.”
St. Paul, Cardinal Zen said, “called into question the very institution of slavery”; salvation should be taken as a whole, with a hierarchy of values, but “in a harmonious whole” and not pitted “one against the other;” and the Church has a “duty to defend the simple faithful from risks that can threaten the purity of faith.”
Regarding the Pope’s response to the third dubium, whether synodality is a “constitutive element of the Church,” Cardinal Zen said the dubium was written because the synod seems to want to resolve issues like an ecumenical council, “which would be wrong.” He said the cardinals “agree on the principle of synodality” simply as “speaking and walking together,” but he took issue with the Pope’s response that suggests the hierarchy must not only “hear” but “listen” — “i.e., obey the voice of the people” — something that points to “overturning the hierarchical constitution of the Church founded by the apostles.”
Turning to the Pope’s response to the fourth dubium, which asked whether the theology of the Church has changed to allow ordination of women as priests, Cardinal Zen took issue with the Pope’s seemingly contradictory reply.
On the one hand, he noted that that the Pope recognizes that the ordination of men is a “definitive, clear and authoritative statement which must be respected by all” but also says that it “can be a subject of study, as in the case of the validity of ordinations in the Anglican Communion.”
Cardinal Zen asked, “So, despite the definitive declaration, it will still be possible to discuss ad infinitum?!” He added: “Among other things, the comparison used here is not adequate, because the validity of ordinations in the Anglican Community [sic] is a historical problem, while our case is of a theological nature.”
Lastly, regarding the fifth dubium, which asked if “forgiveness is a human right,” given that the Pope insists on the duty to absolve everyone and always, so that repentance would not be a necessary condition for sacramental absolution, the Pope responded that repentance is necessary for absolution but stressed that the confessional “is not a customs house.” The Pope also said confessing sins can be a “cruel torture” for some people with “wounded self-esteem” and so just approaching confession can be a “symbolic expression of repentance and seeking divine help.”
Cardinal Zen said “precisely because we are administrators and not masters of the sacraments, we must follow the rules, ensure repentance and resolution. Why, by doing this, should we be turning confession into ‘a customs office’?!”
On the second point, Cardinal Zen said a confessor “must not humiliate the penitent,” and the penitent must express his intention of not sinning again.
“But it is important to make people understand that sin distances us from God and from our happiness, not only eternal happiness, but also happiness here and now,” the cardinal said. “We, too, are convinced that we must learn to truly become messengers of God’s infinite mercy, which is capable of making saints even of us sinners.”
From National Catholic Register by Edward Pentin
The pope said today that the only side is the side of peace. What a cop out. He’s not going to take the side of good over evil in anything: not Israel versus Hamas, not true marriage versus gay marriage, not true male priests versus fake female priestesses. He wants to play the middle. All the time.
There are clear sides of right and wrong, good and evil, true and false. You can’t straddle the middle between those pairs of contradictories. The pope is trying to please everyone by not taking any sides. Most people learn by their late twenties that you can’t do that.
Oh, but he takes sides in “climate change,” which is a total laugh. He’s willing to take a stand on that issue. But it’s the wrong stand that he’s taking.
Blunder after blunder. Bumble after bumble.
Jesus spoke to the Church at Laodicea: ” …. But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth”.
Sorry, but Pope Francis has reiterated (most recently in his response to the cardinals’ recent dubia) the Church’s “very clear understanding of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to procreation. Only this union can be called “marriage.'” You’ve unjustly misrepresented the Holy Father.
Tried to give you a thumbs up. Did not work
I found this article by Edward Pentin grossly misleading and irresponsibly inaccurate. And the words by His Eminence are most unfortunate, if indeed they are precisely (within proper context) what the Cardinal accurately conveyed to Pentin as reported. If Pentin got basic facts wrong about the Pope’s response to the dubia, we must also question whether his report of the Cardinal’s own words is accurate.
For instance, when Pentin points out that the Pope in paragraph (g) wrote, “canon law should not and cannot cover everything'” and that “practical discernment” would be necessary “in particular circumstances”, the Pope actually was not referring to blessing “gay” unions.
Rather the Pope in paragraph (g) was continuing his discourse from paragraph (e) concerning the blessing of individuals or groups of individuals who ask for a blessing that expresses “a plea to God for help, a supplication to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us live better.” Therefore the Pope in paragraph (e) was not extensively talking about blessing “gay” unions. He was referring to those with same-sex attraction wanting a blessing from a priest in order to live a better life, for protection, for prayers.
There are various forms of blessing. The Church doesn’t just deny to bless a person just because he or she is same-sex attracted. That’s the Pope’s point in paragraphs (e) and (f).
Then in paragraph (g), which Pentin refers to, when the Pope writes “canon law should not and cannot cover everything'” and that “practical discernment” would be necessary “in particular circumstances”, the Pope again refers to the various kinds of blessings and prayers and procedures that are particular to a person or a circumstance which need not be “elevated to the level of a rule” because Canon law cannot and should not cover every circumstance out there. In a way the Pope was critiquing the German bishops there.
Any particular blessing, special to a person or a circumstance, need not be entered into the catalogue or book of blessings; nor should Canon law have to say anything about such particular special blessings. That’s ludicrous. The Pope is very correct here.
Pentin terribly puts out of context the Pope’s words and thereby distorts it. The Pope nowhere intimates allowing same-sex union. The Pope categorically denies such blessings in paragraph (c): “the Church avoids any type of rite or sacramental that might contradict this conviction [about marriage] and suggest that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.”
As the Cardinal himself wrote, he really should have consulted the other Cardinals first before putting out this unfortunate personal statement. Instead of consoling the faithful by showing how the Pope was not only doctrinally correct but also pastorally sound and caring, this personal statement by the Cardinal fails to support the unity in the Church. It’s a fail.
As for Pentin, this article of his is most disappointing. It’s also a fail.
No, jon, you’re wrong. The pope very strongly implied it would be possible for the Church to bless same-sex unions in sections e-g that you referred to. By saying that blessings could be imparted to “one or more persons,” the pope is conveying that two people as a couple or in a union could be blessed as a pair, not as individuals. Otherwise, why bother to mention “or more persons”?
When Steve and Chuck are blessed (although it would be a sacrilegious blessing), and everyone knows that Steve and Chuck are already civilly married, every witness will understand what is occurring to be that the priest is conferring God’s and the Church’s blessing upon Steve and Chuck’s civil marriage. There are already sleight-of-hand rhetorical devices to avoid referring to their union as a marriage. Father would say, “We are gathered here today to celebrate and bless the love that Steve and Chuck have for each other. We ask God’s blessing upon them that they grow in love and mutual support and be an example for others.” Without saying the M-word, priests can do a lot to celebrate and seemingly (but not really) bless a homosexual union.
And some will. Some in Germany already are. And the pope is not stopping it.
Francis and Tucho think they are being clever with their verbal evasions and Jesuitically convoluted expressions. They think they are being theologically and pastorally sophisticated, avoiding yes or no answers. They didn’t fool Cardinal Zen.
Francis was asked for a yes or no answer to whether the Church could accept as a possible good an objectively sinful situation, such as a union of persons of the same sex, without departing from revealed doctrine. Francis did not say, “No.” He said, “Perhaps.”
You are wrong. You got Zenned by the cardinal.
“evasions” is wrong. Nowhere in the Pope’s response to the dubia was he “conveying that two people as a couple or in a union could be blessed as a pair.” Wrong.
Again, people, nowhere in the Pope’s response did he say that a “gay” couple may be blessed by a Catholic priest in order to celebrate, recognize, approve their relationship. Nowhere.
In fact the Dicastery For the Doctrine of the Faith, under Pope Francis, back in February 2021 already judged that “it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex. And guess what, “evasions,” Pope Francis gave his papal assent to the publication to that statement.
So folks, no matter how much people like “evasions” attempt to twist the Pope’s words in order to unjustly condemn him, the truth will always be out. Their attempt to malign the Catholic Pope is disgusting. It’s demonic.
Jon, you are right. Cardinal Ladaria, under Pope Francis, did give a definitive answer to the issue of blessing same-sex union as “Negative – the Church does not bless sin.”
You’d think that’s the end of it, but no. The issue has again reared its ugly head in the instrumentum laboris of the Synod. Why didn’t Cardinal Tucho simply point to Ladaria’s ruling from 2021 in response to the 5 Cardinals’ dubia; instead his convuluted answer sounds more like, “No, but…”
It’s starting to look like a Trojan horse.
(“Let your communication be, Yes, yes; No, no: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matt 5:37.)
“Marietta” is mistaken. There is nothing in the instrumentum laboris that speaks about blessing same-sex unions. Nothing.
Yes, jon surely did get “Zenned” by the Cardinal. Great post.
It is totally wrong– and very foolish — to blindly support anyone in the papacy, even if the man says or does very wrong things– “just because he’s the pope.” Why lie about it? Why not, instead, support the truth? God’s Truth? Only God is perfect. Some popes, of long ago– from wealthy, noble or royal Italian families, with fancy titles– have been gravely immoral, did not really believe in the Catholic faith, and even had mistresses– and illegitimate children– during their papacies. And they secured wealth, and fancy noble or royal titles, and arranged jobs (nepotism) and marriages, for their family members, and for their illegitimate children. The only reason for their jobs, as popes– was that they had the political power, authority, and experience, to keep the Catholic Church going, through difficult political eras. Christ picked Judas as an Apostle—and Judas turned out to be a very weak man, very evil– he was the Apostles’ Treasurer, he embezzled money, and he betrayed Christ, to be executed for a false “crime” that He never committed. God allows Free Will, of mankind. A pope is not a puppet, or a robot. He must give his free assent to the Catholic Faith he professes to believe, and leads. The doctrine of papal infallibility does not stretch that far. Only God is perfect. In the end, no matter what– through terrible calamities, even if we have the prophesied Anti-Christ– Good will triumph over Evil, and God will triumph over Satan. God is in charge. Edward Pentin is excellent in his field of journalism. Sadly, not many Catholic clerics in the post-Conciliar era, are excellent. Cardinal Zen is one of the few excellent, outstanding Catholic clerics, of today. As a 90-year-old, delicate in health, wrongfully convicted and persecuted Catholic prelate in a dangerous, Communist country– Cardinal Zen desperately needs and deserves the full support and excellent help of a courageous, faithful, truthful, manly, selfless, Christ-like Catholic leader in Rome, of tremendous loyalty, integrity, and dedication to God and to his clerics. A true, Christ-like Catholic leader, who would gladly risk his life, as Pope Pius XII did in WWII, to help the persecuted Jews.
The European Prince-Bishops and other clergy with secular royal titles, ruled a region and also administrated the Catholic Church, in their region, as a prelate– bishop, rchbishop, and possibly with the title of cardinal. They raised armies, levied taxes, and minted coins for the region they ruled. The Catholic Church has been the State Church, in the past, in many countries. And religious and secular roles were historicallyintertwined. This also happened in England, before King Henry VIII split with Rome.
I am very impressed with Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem, for offering himself in exchange for the poor Gaza hostages. That is truly Christ-like.
During WWII, St. Maximilian Kolbe offered his life in exchange for a married prisoner who had a wife and kids, in the concentration camp where they were all imprisoned– and the Nazis ruthlessly executed him. He was deeply Christ-like, and became a Saint. The Pope ought to re-read Kolbe’s story, and reflect on his great sacrifice– and make some big sacrifices of his own, to stand by his persecuted great Catholic clerics, like Cardinal Zen, and stand by Catholic teaching. No “baloney.”
The Pope is infallible in faith and morals.
Unfortunately, he is not invulnerable to Internet schemes to undermine people’s confidence in him.
God has foreseen all.
God has permitted all.
You fail to understand the actual meaning of papal infallibility. A pope can only teach what is already true and accepted as Catholic doctrine. For example– the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary (declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854) and the dogma of the Assumption of Mary (declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950) were already a part of Catholic teaching. A pope cannot just make up any old thing, and falsely state, in a deviant, ambiguous way– that the Catholic Church may, for any unusual excuse or reason– accept such a thing — like clergy blessings of gay couples, giving absolution to all unrepentant sinners in Confession, accepting divorced/remarried Catholics without Church annulments for reception of Communnion– or allowing pro-abortion political leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and many others, to receive Holy Communion. The Catholic Church has very definite teachings. They are from Christ. They are not ambiguous. They are not “maybes” or “what ifs.” They are very, very definite teachings. They must be clearly taught. Period.This is Christ’s Catholic Church– it is not ours. Popes, prelates and priests all have a big responsibility to respect Christ and respect His Divine teachings. Either teach His teachings correctly– or turn in your clerical collar and give up, leave the clerical state, and get laicized. No more “baloney.”
“The Pope is infallible in faith and morals.” Only when he speaks Ex Cathedra.
What does it mean to speak ex cathedra?
NO that is not correct Dan.
Ex. John Paul II never “spoke” ex cathedra, but his pronouncement on the grave and immoral act of abortion is infallible. His discernment that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women is infallible.
The Latin expression means to speak “from the armchair.” source: google
Literally it means “from the chair”, meaning “from the the pope’s chair officially”. You can look the more detailed explanation up online in the “Catholic Encyclopedia”. or on the Vatican website..
From the chair of Peter.
“Only when he speaks Ex Cathedra.” I stand corrected, I think. I was under the impression that “infallible” was completely tied to the notion of Ex Cathedra. I do better with mathematics.
Hey Jon, your pope-splaining doesn’t make it any better. The man is prepping the Church to accept something which is unacceptable, best not to ignore it.
What’s more, Cardinal Tucho has warned Cardinal Burke that anyone who disagrees with the Pope on this issue will be declared a schismatic. That really pissed off Cardinal Burke; he wondered if the Pope has built his own magisterium.
So “Marietta”: Please do not deceive us, because the Pope, as all popes in the past and in the future, have their own “corpus” (ie, “body”) of official exhortations, Apostolic letters, messages, exhortations which expounds and elaborates upon the perennial teachings of the Church. The “corpus” of that pope is his particular “magisterium” or teaching expounding on the Catholic Faith. So you bet Pope Francis has his own history of magisterium, or teaching, elaborating upon the entire deposit of faith of the Church.
I read it from an Italian news site that Fr. Z mentioned in his blog. https://lanuovabq.it/it/nasce-la-bussola-mensile-rivista-di-formazione-apologetica
I bookmarked it, but for some reason, it has become inaccessible. Nevertheless, I did find the story in another site, although in a much tamer version:
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255581/the-dubia-were-not-meant-as-an-attack-on-the-pope-cardinal-burke-says
“According to him (Burke), that statement was influenced by the words of the new prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, who in a recent interview with the National Catholic Register accused those who criticize the ‘doctrine of the Holy Father’ of being on the road to ‘heresy and schism.’
‘“The Church has never taught that the Roman pontiff has a special power to constitute his own doctrine. The Holy Father is the first master of the deposit of faith, which is in itself always alive and dynamic,” he said.
“Burke then challenged the very concept of synodality, the theme of the current synod. Indeed, he believes that the ‘abstract’ term of synodality, which he describes as “a neologism in Church doctrine,” is intended to ‘artificially link’ this concept to an Eastern practice, which has nevertheless “all the characteristics of a recent invention, especially with regard to the laity.”
Putting into proper context Cardinal Fernandez’s words, what he meant by “doctrine of the Holy Father” is the “unique charism, only given to Peter and his successors, which is ‘a living and active gift'”. The Pope can exercise by himself the charism of infallibility, and he has a body of teachings/expositions on the doctrines of the Church which is his magisterium. And yes, going against the Pope’s magisterium is to go against the doctrines of the Church. Yes, it can mean being schismatic. There is nothing wrong with Fernandez’s words.
Marietta, you need to give a source for that.
Ok, I read it from an Italian news site that Fr. Z mentioned in his blog. https://lanuovabq.it/it/nasce-la-bussola-mensile-rivista-di-formazione-apologetica
I bookmarked it, but for some reason, it has become inaccessible. Nevertheless, I did find the story in another site, although in a much tamer version:
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255581/the-dubia-were-not-meant-as-an-attack-on-the-pope-cardinal-burke-says
“According to him (Burke), that statement was influenced by the words of the new prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, who in a recent interview with the National Catholic Register accused those who criticize the ‘doctrine of the Holy Father’ of being on the road to ‘heresy and schism.’
‘“The Church has never taught that the Roman pontiff has a special power to constitute his own doctrine. The Holy Father is the first master of the deposit of faith, which is in itself always alive and dynamic,” he said.
“Burke then challenged the very concept of synodality, the theme of the current synod. Indeed, he believes that the ‘abstract’ term of synodality, which he describes as “a neologism in Church doctrine,” is intended to ‘artificially link’ this concept to an Eastern practice, which has nevertheless “all the characteristics of a recent invention, especially with regard to the laity.”
A good Catholic– and everyone else– must refrain from use of vulgar language– especially in speaking or writing about religious matters. Cardinal Burke deserves respect. He must never be described as acting in a manner that has to do with vulgarity and filth of the sinful, Godless, anti-Catholic secular world. Cardinal Burke stands “in persona Christi,” and is our “alter Christus,” at the holy Altar of God. A Catholic editor, or editor of any religion (or even none) should also delete vulgar language, and refrain from printing it.We must not be a part of the
disrespect, immorality and filth, in the Godless, Satanic, sinful “Death Revolution,” (or filthy, vulgar 1960s “Sex Revolution”)– the evil, Godless, anti-Christian, filthy, Satanic Culture of Death. We belong to Christ, Who is holy. We must seek to be clean and pure, and more Christ-like, Catholic Christian Role Models, with good Christian standards of living, behaving, speaking, and writing, and seek to help Christ purify the sinful, fallen world, and bring about His beautiful Culture of Life. We spread the Gospel by how we live, as Christian Catholics. A fine Catholic cleric and Role Model, such as Cdl. Zen, for example, might say, in excellent English, “Cardinal Burke was upset with Cardinal Fernandez (Tucho).” Etc. Even in the first few centuries of the existence of Christianity, Christians were beautiful Role Midels. Some were Saints. They did not behave as vulgar, pagan Romans– and vulgar, immoral, pagan Roman emperors of thst era, like Nero and Caligula. They sought to live Christ-like lives, and convert people to Jesus Christ. We must do the same thing.
“Reply to Marietta:”
Tell me again, What does the word “coprophagia” mean? I seem to recall a very prominent person to have used in public it early in his pontificate and drove many a vocabulary-challenged person to the dictionary.
Through the complete, well-instructed, faithful practice of the Catholic Faith, we may become sanctified, holy, pure, whole in Christ, in mind, body, and soul, and all our thoughts, words and actions will be filled with Him, overflowing with His Divine graces. Just like the holy Saints, of all historical eras, all generations, even today! That is Christ’s salvific, holy mission.
Thanks, Karen. You made me feel like a serial murderer.
You are greatly exaggerating! And “how you feel” is not important, in this case. Best to apologize, if you make an error. Respect for God and for others, with good manners, is really important! As for “Karen”– that is not my name. And I know nothing about “youth” rock groups, celebrities, slang words, fads, video games, etc., if that is what you are referring to. I am well over age 70! Respect for God, for others, and for our good Catholic prelates, and good manners, is all that is asked– why is that so hard?
The Church is holy. Incivility, rudeness, crudeness, and use of coarse, filthy, profane language, do not belong in God’s holy Church. Those who lack respect for God must reform their behavior, and learn to use good English– or good Spanish, etc. When speaking of excellent, holy Catholic prelates. It is important to be respectful and only use good language.
Don’t get your nose out of joint over this. Everyone can easily learn to speak good English– or good Spanish. Coarse, dirty language in church, or referring to holy priests, nuns, bishops, cardinals, the pope, etc.– is terribly wrong.
Reply to Marietta:
Karen, I am 80 years old. I don’t know why you’re so angry with me and why that barrage of virtue-signallng.
Well, if you want me to say I’m sorry. Okay. Here goes – make sure you don’t miss it:
I AM SOOOOOOOORRRRRY, Karen.
Pope Francis: ” e) Therefore, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey a mistaken concept of marriage. ”
jon: “Rather the Pope in paragraph (g) was continuing his discourse from paragraph (e) concerning the blessing of individuals or groups of individuals who ask for a blessing…Therefore the Pope in paragraph (e) was not extensively talking about blessing “gay” unions. He was referring to those with same-sex attraction wanting a blessing from a priest in order to live a better life, for protection, for prayers.”
jon, Pope Francis is quite clear in e) that he wishes to avoid a mistaken view of marriage. Sadly, it is you who would interpret Francis’ words to suit your own cause. On this point, evasions October 18, 2023 at 3:37 pm is correct.
“Dan” here seems to be throwing punches in the air. And, no, “evasions” is still not correct.
Yes, in paragraph (e) indeed the Pope wants to “avoid a mistaken view of marriage” which is why he calls for “pastoral prudence” on behalf of the priest because when people ask for a blessing they are “expressing a plea to God for help, a supplication to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us live better.” Not every blessing requested by a same-sex attracted person is for validation of his “union.” That’s ludicrous. “Pastoral prudence” therefore is called for. That’s the Pope’s point in (e) which he continues in paragraphs (f) and (g).
Holy Father then proceeds to make his point not to refuse anyone a blessing whose circumstances are mitigated by various factors (paragraph f). Realizing this is an exercise in “pastoral prudence.”
Think about a divorced-and-married Catholic or a couple living together with children but who aren’t married in the Church. They now approach the priest for a blessing so that they may continue living chastely as brother and sister. The Pope is admonishing pastors to apply “pastoral prudence” by not just dismissing them as “sinners” when there may be mitigating factors. This is the point of paragraph (f). Again, it’s flowing from the Pope’s earlier point in (e) about various types of blessings and the need for “pastoral prudence.”
Nowhere in the Pope’s discourse has he allowed blessing same-sex unions. Nowhere.
Then in paragraph (g), again from the same need for “pastoral prudence” (from paragraph e), in discerning the type of blessing being asked, the Pope writes that special circumstances need not become the norm. And that Canon Law need not specifically address such special situations and procedures (such as blessing of an addict, a drunk, a chronic masturbator, a prostitute, whatever; the list is endless).
Make no mistake folks, some people are probably very disappointed that they can’t find any point-blank, explicit wording from the Pope unreservedly allowing the blessing of same-sex unions.
They have to rely on twisting and distorting, and half-quoting the Pope’s words. We should all feel sorry for the Pope’s detractors.
Get real and use common sense, jon. No gay couple is going to ask the church’s blessing upon them so they can have God’s assistance in being sexually chaste. They are going to ask the church’s blessing upon them as a sign of the church’s approval of their immoral and unnatural union.
Get real. You won’t find explicit wording from the pope allowing the blessing of same-sex unions because even the pope realizes that would be going too far. I agree with one of the comments around here — don’t remember which one — there are so many — that said it’s part of a strategy to change practice on the ground while keeping doctrine intact on paper. They are implying and intimating and tolerating under the ruse of “pastoral prudence” what doctrine prohibits. In that way, doctrine will be hollowed out without changing it explicitly. Everyone else gets it but you.
In liturgical language a blessing is a ritual ceremony by which an authorized cleric in major orders sanctifies persons or things to divine service, or invokes divine favor on what he blesses. the Church’s ritual provides for over two hundred such blessings, some of which are reserved to bishops or members of certain religious institutes.
Sorry, but “pastoral” is wrong and his/her point is unrealistic. I reckon that it is he/she who needs to “get real” and to “use common sense.” How so?
Firstly, the preposterous point that this whole thing is “part of a strategy to change practice on the ground while keeping doctrine intact on paper” does not hold water because the DDF back in February 2021 has plainly stated, as directed by Pope Francis, that blessing same-sex unions is not licit. There is no diocese in the world, there is no parish in God’s green Earth (except in Germany) that will go against a clear teaching by the DDF.
Therefore, the “practice on the ground” in parishes and dioceses will remain true to the perennial teachings of the Church, which the Pope has articulated.
This awful “conspiracy theory” that there is some sort of “strategy” like what “pastoral” is suggesting is most distasteful. People, don’t you realize how unhinged you sound? Honestly.
“Make no mistake folks, some people are probably very disappointed that they can’t find any point-blank, explicit wording from the Pope unreservedly allowing the blessing of same-sex unions.” I agree with you jon, that Pope Francis never explicitly allows for such; you are of course correct.
Do you believe sex outside of marriage is sinful?
I don’t know to whom this question is addressed, but I shall answer in the affirmative.
For Catholics, sex outside of a sacramental marriage is grave sin (mortal sin with conditions of full knowledge and consent.)
Sex acts within marriage can also be sinful.
Cardinal Zen is telling like it really is. God bless Cardinal Zen.
170. Although it sounds obvious, spiritual accompaniment must lead others ever closer to God, in whom we attain true freedom. Some people think they are free if they can avoid God; they fail to see that they remain existentially orphaned, helpless, homeless. They cease being pilgrims and become drifters, flitting around themselves and never getting anywhere. To accompany them would be counterproductive if it became a sort of therapy supporting their self-absorption and ceased to be a pilgrimage with Christ to the Father. Evangelii gaudium
The Pope and the Vatican has said no to the blessing of gay unions and the dubia Cardinals know it.
But the pope is not disciplining clerics who are blessing gay unions, nor is he shutting down discussion of its possibility. If it’s not possible, why not say so every time, emphatically, forcefully, officially, until people realize it’s not worth posing the question anymore?
Because the pope’s stratagem is to keep the doctrine intact on paper but tolerate pastoral provisions, circumstantial workarounds that disregard the doctrine. When the experience of parish life includes blessing gay unions as a pastoral provision that should not be made into a universal norm yet will be a universal norm in all but name, the Church will have changed its doctrine for all practical purposes even though its teaching will not have formally changed. That’s the stratagem. It’s so clear. Jimmy Martin knows it. So do Cardinal Hollerich and Tucho.
“strategem’s” analysis is wrong. It’s so wrong it’s laughable because for one thing, blessing same-sex union will never become part of your typical parish life because the Holy See has been clear that the Church cannot bless same-sex unions. And most if not all parishes in the world (except in Germany apparently) by and large are obedient to the disciplines and teachings of the Church.
“strategem’s” error is an over-application of the fallacy called “slippery slope.”
It is a characteristic of Pope Francis it seems that he doesn’t seem rush to depose or discipline rogue bishops. If “stratagem” is going to bring up the German bishops, he should also bring up the lack of discipline toward Strickland.
When oh when, O Holy Father, are you going to depose Strickland already? People like “stratagem” are wondering why you don’t seem to discipline rogue bishops.
Is Cardinal Zen also a “rogue” bishop to be disciplined already? By “rogue” do you mean those bishops who adhere to the Magisterium in faith and morals? My guess is, jon, If you knew our names here you would be calling upon the Holy Father to have us all disciplined and expelled from the Church.
Excellent post.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican-says-priests-cant-bless-gay-couples-why-did-pope-francis-approve-decree
This is from March but thanks to the 5 dubia Cardinals, the word on the street is that gay couples can get blessings.
Doctrine:
Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. this teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or ordinarily in the perennial exercise of the Church’s magisterium or teaching authority. Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God.
Why is the issue still on the agenda of the Synod, if it has been resolved? Why have the Dubia Brothers reformulated their dubia, asking for better clarification?
Lately, the “New Ways (Homosexual) Ministry” which previous Popes have condemned, has gained visitation rights with Pope Francis. It is reported that they talked with the Pope for about an hour. After the meeting, its leader, Sister Janine Gramick announced to the media that the Pope was open to the suggestion of blessing same-sex unions.
If this was a wrong report, the Pope should correct it, but he hasn’t.
I think Zen unwittingly coined a pontifical moniker: Francis the Untenable.
Another way that Pentin grossly misrepresents the Pope in this article is when Pentin wrote that by “listening” the Pope implies to “obey the voice of the people. The Pope never wrote that in his response to the dubia. I don’t know if Pentin was saying that the Cardinal wrote that about the Pope’s response (I can’t seem to find the Cardinal’s official statement online). But in any case, no where in the response to the dubia did the Pope say as Pentin indicates. Very wrong.
It took a while to find it.
https://oldyosef.hkdavc.com/?p=1945
I cannot thank you enough for saying that. I got confused with the letter that he wrote to the synod participants written about in The Pillar that we had the story about a couple of weeks ago.
I did not even notice that we did not get a link to the source document.
It is definitely worth reading and I noticed one error his response to the dubia about the Synod where he equates the hierarchy hearing and listening to the laity as the hierarchy obeying the laity. This was a common error leading up to the Synod. Cardinal Burke spoke at a dissident alternative to the Synod in which he appears to believe that hierarchy and synodality are mutually exclusive (https://www.cardinalburke.com/presentations/synodality-vs-true-identity) which of course they are not.
Kind of a brain warp that Zen questions whether the Pope really answered the dubia himself.
Also, he says that he agrees with most of what the Pope says.
My reaction at the end was that he was not taking into account that the Pope was sending the answers to Cardinals in the Catholic Church, not to laity. He was assuming that they understood things that either they did not understand (yikes) or that they wanted to be able to quote to lay people (guessing.)
In the end, the dubia got the Church into the position that they did not want the Church to get into because media reported it wrongly. Not the Pope’s fault.
https://www.ncregister.com/news/pope-s-directive-on-same-sex-blessings-emphasizes-persons-not-unions-theologians-say
If what is claimed in this article is true, then why did the pope give us this: ” e) Therefore, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey a mistaken concept of marriage. ” There is no way a mistaken view of marriage could be conveyed unless a gay couple as a couple requested a form of blessing which might be, well, misconstrued as marriage. I think the pope’s words in e) speak for themselves.
There is nothing anything we can say to the people who want to believe that and to believe that, as someone else put it, the Church will approve gay sex. It is approve gay sex? It doesn’t even approve of heterosexual sex.
It is just not that kind of place.
What will the Pope do, if a political leader asks the Pope’s blessing on his campaign to legalize gay marriages, or legalize a woman’s so-called “right” to abort her child, all the way up to birth? Will the Pope refuse to bless such a sinful politician, and their endeavors– and refuse to give them Communion at Mass? Every time the legally married Pres. Alberto Fernandez of Argentina flies to the Vatican with his mistress and “shacks up”– the couple gets a private Mass for themselves in the Vatican, along with Communion for both of them. Nobody cares about Fernandez’ poor wife and children, suffering back in Argentina. Pure hypocrisy! I bet the Pope or one of his clerical pals would give Fernandez and his mistress a blessing after Mass, if they requested it.
Pres. Fernandez’ mistress, Fabiola Yanez– not his wife, Marcela Luchetti– serves as Argentina’s First Lady. She is considered his “Domestic Partner,” and officially fulfills all the First Lady duties of Argentina, alongside her lover, the President. They recently had a son (illegitimate) in 2022. Fernandez former mistress, who served as First Lady from 2005-2014, was Vilma Ibarra. Fernandez and his wife, who were married in 1993, separated in 2005. They had a son in 1994, who was LGBT, and grew up to become a famous female impersonater, or Drag Queen performer. Some news articles claim that Fernandez and his wife, Marcela Luchetti, actually got a divorce, but the majority of them state that they have just been separated since 2005– and are still legally married. He and his mistress are obviously not eligible to receive Holy Communion. Fernandez also is an abortion advocate. Why doesn’t the Pope try to educate these political leaders of his own country, Argentina, in the Catholic Faith– and insist that they get their lives right with Christ? Why can’t this pope really care about Christ, and Christian Morality– even in his own country?
Because that won’t get you praise from Whoopi Goldberg and Megan Rapinoe.
Great reply, praise! Hoping that the Pope’s Argentine President Fernandez didn’t bring his son to the Vatican, along with his mistress, the First Lady– to perform a Drag Queen show at the Vatican! And next, for the three of them to attend Mass, receive Communion, and receive papal greetings and honors!
God bless Cardinal Zen. He is one sane voice out of billions.
Cher said that she’d leave the United States if Trump is re-elected. I’ll stop going to Mass if the pope permits blessing gay unions.
The church’s indefectibility is being put to the test. It better pass, or I’m outta here.
INDEFECTIBILITY
Imperishable duration of the Church and her immutability until the end of time. The First Vatican Council declared that the Church possesses “an unconquered stability” and that, “built on a rock, she will continue to stand until the end of time” (Denzinger 3013, 3056). The Church’s indefectibility, therefore, means that she now is and will always remain the institution of salvation, founded by Christ. This affirms that the Church is essentially unchangeable in her teaching, her constitution, and her liturgy. It does not exclude modifications that do not affect her substance, nor does it exclude the decay of individual local churches or even whole dioceses.
No one can be an accessory to your mortal sin. I hope you will consider the consequences to your soul.
Dubium: Is Catholicism true?
FrancisChurch Responsum: When one considers questions about truth, one cannot simply assume that truth is something to be known or insisted upon or discovered or tested. There is truth, to be sure, but who are we to judge it? One person might believe that what he says is true, yet another person disagrees with him.
Furthermore, claiming to have the truth often causes resentment in people with different viewpoints. Truth cannot be insisted upon over love, and sometimes love will call us to restrain ourselves from speaking about what we believe to be true out of concern for the feelings of others. In this way, truth and love are of mutual service to each other. Yes, we want to speak the truth, but we must do so in a loving way, which might require that out of love we not speak what we think the truth is.
Catholics are called to love everyone. It is not always necessary to insist on the truth of Catholic faith in dialogue with others. Sometimes, presenting yourself as having the truth could be counterproductive or off-putting. So rather than thinking in terms of “yes” or “no” Catholicism is true, we should think in terms of whether our words spoken to others show love for them.
It’s a worrisome time in the church. The 60s liberal Boomer theologians and bishops are making their last attempt to change church teaching.
Facts, people: the pope and Tucho had an opportunity to respond clearly and state unequivocally that the church cannot and will never bless same-sex unions. They responded with obfuscations and a Jesuitical word salad that gave encouragement to people who want the church to bless same-sex unions.
They gave permission for priests to bless gay unions without saying they were giving permission.
Read that sentence above again enough times until you get it. That’s exactly what the pope and Tucho just did.
The synod final report will also include language of openness to blessing gay unions instead of saying that such blessings are a no-go zone. James Martin and Cardinal Hollerich will ensure that such language is in there.
They are arranging the pieces on the chessboard to get what they want: the church’s approval of gay sex.
They are not doing anything.
They responded to questions by people who knew better.
They have not done anything.
But, thanks to the dubia 5, they might have to deal with it.
But it will probably be dealt with by bishops first.
They did not give permission to priests to bless gay unions. Period.
Not yet. But in Germany, priests are already doing it and they haven’t stopped them.
They are meeting with the German bishops.
He hasn’t stopped all the people lying about him on the Internet either.
“The chessboard” is wrong. The Pope, through the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith, back in February 2021 clearly prohibited the blessing of same-sex union.
Let’s print those words here, folks, from the same Dicastery from their statement over 2 years ago, in case they missed it:
“For this reason, it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex. The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan.
“Furthermore, since blessings on persons are in relationship with the sacraments, the blessing of homosexual unions cannot be considered licit. This is because they would constitute a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing invoked on the man and woman united in the sacrament of Matrimony, while in fact “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family”.
“The declaration of the unlawfulness of blessings of unions between persons of the same sex is not therefore, and is not intended to be, a form of unjust discrimination, but rather a reminder of the truth of the liturgical rite and of the very nature of the sacramentals, as the Church understands them.”
Guess what? Fr. Rupnik was formerly chastised and prohibited from ministry. Then Pope Francis rehabilitated him.
Lesson: What Francis says or does in the past can be reversed.
Guess what, “Can”, you’re mistaken. Fr. Rupnik’s case is no comparison to the Pope’s decision on blessing same-sex unions as articulated by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
For one thing, the fact that the Church’s prohibition to bless such unions is rooted in Sacred Scripture which condemns homosexual acts; it’s rooted in the Church’s Tradition; it’s rooted in the Church’s laws, theology, discipline, and teachings about marriage.
Whereas Fr. Rupnik’s case is a matter of mere temporal governance and canonical discipline (which are perfectly changeable). Rulings of such nature are governed by the facts of the case, which I doubt “Can” here has full knowledge of, except what he/she has read in the media.
Therefore, this is a very wrong comparison, “Can.”
jon, I think people may be confused. I think the word ‘blessing’ may be misunderstood.
In the vernacular, people call convalidation of a marriage having your marriage “blessed by the Church.”
The Pope obviously was not talking about that. He was talking about people (gay or otherwise) asking for a simple blessing.
You can go to your priest and ask him to bless your family. We have blessings of pets on October 4. there is a book of household blessings that you can do by yourself or with your family. Anybody can bless themselves with Holy Water.
The priest blesses everybody at Mass-Catholic or not Catholic, sinful or just come from Confession.
We need to define terms. Again.
Making clear what the word “blessing” means, I reckon, will not resolve the dissent and disobedience of many people out there against the Church and the Pope. What they need is repentance from their dissent and antipathy towards the Catholic Pope. They need to mend their ways. They need to ask God to rebuild their trust in His Catholic Church.
jon. Many Catholics have come kicking and screaming to the conclusion that the hierarchy miserably failed us. Don’t you dare presume that we need to “mend our ways”. Those you accuse are, in fact, the antithesis of antipathy; we care greatly about the preservation of our Faith and will support each other against the antagonists in its leadership. God speaks to us also, if I need to remind you, and we are called in charity to both challenge and right the errors as we encounter them.
Making clear what the word “love” means, I reckon, will not resolve the disobedience of Harriet against her unfaithful, abusive husband. What Harriet needs is repentance from her antipathy towards her husband. She needs to mend her ways. She needs to ask God to rebuild her trust in her unfaithful, abusive husband.
Sorry but “Axiom’s” points need correction because they’re grossly mistaken.
Firstly, the Church’s hierarchy has not “failed us.” That’s a preposterous lie. The Magisterium of the Church (that’s the Pope and the bishops) and the Holy See (that’s the various dicasteries in the Vatican) have continued to serve the people of God in spite of the calumnies and lies out there in the media, the blogs, and the faux-traditionalists.
Secondly, believe me, “Axiom,” when I say that those who lie about the Pope and who spread calumnies about him do need to “mend their ways.” No doubt about that. It’s a grave sin. It’s actually something that can prevent a soul from going to heaven if it’s done knowingly and freely.
Thirdly, those who “greatly care about the preservation” of the Catholic Faith would not be unjustly attacking and maligning the Pope. This is because the Pope and the bishops in union with him are the guardians of the Church’s traditions. Going against the Pope means going against the true Faith of the Church.
Fourthly, as Catholics we believe that (apart from Scripture and the Church’s Tradition) “God speaks to us” most definitely also through the Pope and the bishops in union with him. By disagreeing with the Pope, you are basically disagreeing with God, because as Christ said to the Apostles into whose offices the Pope and the bishops have succeeded: “Whoever listens to you listens to Me; whoever rejects you rejects Me; and whoever rejects Me rejects the One Who sent Me” (Luke 10:16).
jon is correct. This is the difference between heresy and faith. Between schism and obedience.
God isn’t wanting you to stay faithful to your own understanding of the Catholic Faith.
He wants you to obey the Faith which means obedience to the Pope, the Vicar of Christ.
He wants you be charitable and honest.
Stop attacking the Pope. Stop lying about the Pope.
The hierarchy has not failed you. That statement is absurd.
Your pastor, your bishop, have failed you? How? By withholding Sacraments?
What do you think that they owe you?
You care about the preservation of the Faith? Read the New Testament and obey it. That will preserve the Faith.
Of all the reasons to end up in hell, schism is the stupidest.
You won’t go to hell for schism. You certainly won’t go to hell for opposing what Francis has done. If Sr. Grammick and Whoopi Goldberg end up in heaven, there’s nothing anyone can do to end up in hell.
Be warned, “Hell-Heaven”: yes, a person may indeed suffer the eternal consequence of schism. A person may indeed have to suffer the eternal consequence of rejecting Christ through His Vicar on earth. Be warned.
Schism a mortal sin. If you do not believe that, then you do not believe the Catholic Faith.
What did Francis do that you are opposing?
We are always supposed to pray for people, living and dead.
The Church has always taught, that if you die in mortal sin, you will be damned.
I do not know whether those two women are in mortal sin.
We can see a objectively grave sin and still not know if it is mortal sin because we cannot tell if the person had full knowledge and gave the full consent of their will.
“Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.” Matthew 21:31
Satan’s boldest move yet is now to use the church’s own organizational structures, personnel and communications as a means of undermining Catholic faith. I now sometimes wonder whether what I’m hearing from church sources is the truth that comes from God or lies that come from the evil one.
It shouldn’t be this hard.
I’ll help you all understand what’s going on using a metaphor.
Pope Francis is a city planner. He doesn’t like STOP signs nor red lights nor speed limit signs because those impositions don’t let people make their own driving decisions based on their concrete circumstances. Maybe someone doesn’t need to stop at an intersection. Maybe it’s okay to go ten miles above the speed limit on this road. So he’s replacing all traffic signs and lights with DRIVE SAFELY signs. That will let people decide for themselves what is the best way to drive, and the mean police won’t be writing tickets to anyone.
“I’ll help you all understand what’s going on using a metaphor.” I can’t imagine the chaos that would result if the city planner relied solely on DRIVE SAFELY signs, especially as there would be no punishment for unsafe driving. Such a planner possesses an extraordinarily pollyannish view of human nature. Anyway, the metaphor goes far too far even for Pope Francis.
Do you not see the chaos in the church right now? I think it’s a brilliant analogy.
No I do not see chaos in the Church. Not at all.
Just because some Internet vloggers have problems with the Pope does not mean there is chaos in the Church.
I am surprised that Bishops and Cardinals are using the Internet to undermine confidence in the Pope which is the smoke of Satan.
Some people can’t see through the smoke.
That said nothing about Pope Francis but it said a lot about you.
“That said nothing about Pope Francis but it said a lot about you.” May I ask, what is the referent to “that,” and to whom are you referring with the word “you”? If the “that” is the entire post of City Planner, then you post makes no sense, unless you mean to say the metaphor does not in the least fit Pope Francis’ leadership style, so to speak. If the “you” is City Planner, such an implied beat down is unworthy of someone aiming for responsible criticism. Rather than besmirching cheap shots, you might actually give voice to your concerns about exactly what it says about City Planner. How has he failed to understand the pope, and comment from there.
I found parts of the metaphor useful in the way it relates DRIVE SAFELY to the pope’s emphasis on accompaniment and discernment. However, the usefulness of the metaphor was quite limited, as I endeavored to explain. Which gets me to the nest possibility: I am the “you” and my post is the “that.” But the same canons of intellectual discipline hold. Be brave and explain what it says about me. I shall read with interest.
The metaphor is completely inappropriate and it was not a cheap shot or a beat down. For goodness sake.
This person wants rules, laws, structure, control.
Pope Francis made a lot of rules.
People did not like it but he did it anyway.
He did not save drive safely. He said ‘don’t do this, don’t do that.” “Do this, do that.”
“The metaphor is completely inappropriate….Pope Francis made a lot of rules…” Certainly with regard to those favoring the TLM, you are correct. Traditionis custodes is an example. However, the invitation to discernment, prominent in Amoris Laetitia, does call to mind the advice to drive safely. In this case there is an obvious break from rules to an appeal to conscience. His answers to the dubia also represent a shift away from rules to personal accompaniment. His answers should be studied carefully to see the contrast between his approach and that of the 5 cardinals. Completely inappropriate? No. Somewhat appropriate? I think so. Somewhat applicable? I also think so.
Great post, City planner. All very true.
Whoopi Goldberg flew to Rome to visit Pope Francis to thank him for being more open to gay unions. The Pope is not walking anything back. He’s not saying, “You people have misunderstood me.” He’s not telling people who are thanking him for being open to blessing homosexual unions that they are wrong.
Because he knows they are not wrong. They are correctly understanding him and his intentions.
She just said “I’ve wanted to thank you.” She did not say for being open to gay unions.
The Pope is a faithful Catholic.
The devil is the father of lies.
“The first tasks of the new pope will be to restore normality, restore doctrinal clarity in faith and morals, restore a proper respect for the law and ensure that the first criterion for the nomination of bishops is acceptance of the apostolic tradition. Theological expertise and learning are an advantage, not a hinderance for all bishops and especially archbishops.”
— Cardinal Pell (2022) about the pope who will succeed Francis
I never believed he wrote that memo.
Yes, I too, believe Cardinal Pell wrote and said this, and he meant what he said. Excelllent.
Reading part of the Cardinal’s personal statement leaves me scratching my head. Why?
The Cardinal’s statement that “Equally difficult is the sentence in paragraph (a) where it allows certain forms of blessing of homosexual unions.” Nowhere in paragraph (a) concerning the second dubia did the Pope allow blessing of homosexual unions. Nowhere. Where is the Cardinal getting that? Who knows.
Plus the Cardinal expressed astonishment “by the sentence in paragraph (a), which quotes from “Amoris laetitia” (AL): «Other forms of union do so only in a partial and analogous way»!?” Partial and analogous to marriage, is the Pope’s point.
But in that part of AL, the Pope was not referring to same-sex unions. That phrase “partial and analogous ways” is in paragraph 292, and the Pope was referring to civil marriages and cohabitation. Not same-sex unions.
No disrespect to the Cardinal, but after reading these two glaring errors near the beginning of the statement, I wondered what other mischaracterizations of the Pope’s answers to the dubia, and other errors, I might find as I continue reading. So, I decided to discontinue reading.
As Zen himself said, he really, really should have consulted the other cardinals before putting out this statement. Frankly the statement, “doesn’t smell like Zen.” It sounded like the handiwork of one of this handlers or secretaries: it was slipshod and lacking in graciousness and charity. Zen is not like this to any pope.
Please finish reading it.
When someone says “I will leave the Church if…” or “I won’t go to Church if…” that person has an idol, something that is more important to them than God. It could be anything, even something good, like holiness or peace or obeying the rules. I see the idol of masculinity showing up sometimes.
An idol does not have to be a false God. It can be an image of the real God. When the Israelites made the golden calf, they were not creating a false God; they created an image of the God who brought them out of Egypt. God did not appreciate that.
Every week I proclaim that I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If a Synodal Church or if FrancisChurch isn’t those things, then I am not interested in it and don’t feel bound by it. And if I can’t confidently distinguish juridically and liturgically and ontologically between institutions or manifestations of the Catholic Church and those of FrancisChurch, then I will throw up my hands and walk away. It’s God’s responsibility to preserve the Church, not mine. If FrancisChurch falls into grave error and it cannot be distinguished from the Catholic Church, then I’m out. I’m not giving allegiance to an imposter nor to a fraud. Spiritual but not religious would start looking really attractive in that case.
Sorry, but there’s no such thing as a “FrancisChurch.” There is only one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, and the Supreme Pontiff, Francis, is its visible head. The way you know you’re in-line with the Church’s teachings is if you adhere to the Pope’s teachings, because where the Pope is, there is the Church.
In other words, “If,” the Catholic Church will never fall into grave error because we believe that the Church is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit. It is not “If” who decides who is or who isn’t a Catholic. It is adherence to the Pope that determines who is in communion with the Church. Straight up.
Adherence to the pope does not determine who is in communion with the Church. Not when the pope is wrong.
St. Robert Bellarmine taught that under no circumstances can the Supreme Pontiff be in error when he teaches the entire Church on matters of faith and morals. Secondly St. Bellarmine taught that the Magisterium and the Holy See are exempt from the possibility of error in faith. Thirdly the Saint taught that the Roman Pontiff is incapable of error in his official capacity, not only in decrees of faith, but also in precepts of morals which are prescribed for the whole Church and which deal with matters necessary for salvation or with matters about good and evil in themselves.
Make no mistake, “in”, adhering to the Pope determines who is in communion with the Church.
Yes, it does.
You don’t really believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. You proclaim it every week but you don’t really believe it.
I think Pentin means what retired Archbishop Chaput said: People should listen to the Pope; not the Pope listening to the people. It’s the Pope who should lead; not the people leading the Pope by the nose. That’s why the Church has her hierarchy.
The Pope says “Go out to the peripheries.” You do it.
Then the Pope says “How’d it go at the peripheries?” And listens.
Then he hears whatever and says “How can we do better at spreading the Gospel? at making people understand the Christ?”
He isn’t asking your opinion on doctrine.
He is just asking for your thoughts because you were the one out there doing it.
I think it would help to have little tracts that people can give to others.
You know why people don’t understand it.
Because they never did what the Pope said to do. They did not follow the leader.
You have a chance to respond to the new dubia yourself. Here:
https://www.missaepromissa.com/dubia
Overy 90% of respondents have answered correctly, which the current Holy See refused to provide.
Sensus fidei fidelium is a better guide than sensus fidei papae.
I guessTucho, the new Prefect of the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith– has the final say, for now, on blessings. He just stated that clerical blessings are for all people, in all situations. Of course, this is not what Christ, Who founded our True Church, would say. I follow the True Church.
Of course… blessings are for everyone and for everything, in which case they don’t mean nor cause anything real. But they will signify acceptance, and therein lies the problem.
They are trying to water down the whole faith so that it doesn’t mean anything. Sometimes I wonder if these people actually have Catholic faith or know anything about Catholic doctrine or theology.
I guess Jesus was wrong about that whole narrow gate thing, huh? It’s now a wide open gate, and everyone easily fits through it. Well, hurrah for that. Hurrah for everything and for everyone. Hurrah for every belief anyone ever had or ever will. Hurrah for every choice or lifestyle that anyone chooses. Hurrah for doing whatever you want. Hurrah that faith and salvation are so easy now… automatic… guaranteed.
One practical result is that confession is no longer needed. Let’s convert those confessionals into something useful like closet space for gay rainbow flags that we’ll bring out every June and place all over the church.
The only one True Church is the Catholic Church whose visible head is the Supreme Pontiff, Francis.
There is nothing that Fernandez has said that contradicts the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage, on homosexuality, on blessings. Nothing.
As people keep pointing out to you, they are smarter than to do that. What you should be focusing on is how the pope and Tucho have been releasing statements and giving answers that are deliberately subject to multiple and contrary interpretations. They say and issue things that give support to the heretics who want the church to bless gay unions. They don’t shut down speculation that gay blessings will be allowed. No, they don’t come right out and say, “Hey, y’all… gay blessings are now officially permitted and here’s the ritual.”
They instead are sneaking it in through the Trojan horse of discernment and pastoral provisions and accompaniment.
The Pope was clear when he wrote in his response to the dubia: “the Church avoids any type of rite or sacramental that might contradict this conviction [of true marriage] and suggest that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.” I mean, did you, “Trojan” even read the Pope’s response?
And the Cardinal plainly said as recently as in an interview in late September, which LifeSite News by the way delayed in publishing, that “homosexual union is not blessed, because it [the Church] has the clear definition of marriage which is a union between a male and female open to new life. Only that is called matrimony – marriage, only that reality is called that way. So the blessing that could confuse and not make clear about this reality is not good for the Church. But perhaps also [they] need blessings, not only one isolated person, but two persons who are asking for a blessing because they want to be faithful to God, they want to be better, they want to grow in their Christian life.”
trojan horse, it is not my business but you are saying what the gay people are saying-New Ways and Outreach.
Do you frequent those websites?
They are not reliable. Many articles are just someone’s opinion or interpretation.
Please give a source.
Also, please give a reference on your claim about Jesus Christ.
Tucho no me gusto
This pope only has criticisms against traditional or conservative Catholics and bishops. He never criticizes celebrities, politicians, liberal Catholics. He told Whoopi Goldberg that she’s very important because she makes people laugh. Never mind that she’s totally pro abortion and pro gay marriage and is utterly secular. She makes people laugh, which is why she’s better than the neo-Pelagian Catholic husband and wife who breed like rabbits and have nine children whom they take to the TLM. Ay, caramba.
If people were evangelizing and serving the poor, they would not have time for this.
It is just an indictment of those who are trying to make mountains out of molehills.
God bless the Pope.
Holy Spirit, guide the Pope.
Mother Mary and St. Joseph and St. Michael, intercede for the protection of the Pope.
All Saints, pray for us.
It doesn’t take long to type a comment. This one is taking less than twenty seconds to type and send.
“If people were evangelizing and serving the poor…” Why not evangelize the suffering middle class and those with wealth? Has the Church reached those with the means to influence political policy at all levels of government? to influence media and entertainment? If the culture wars have been lost, has it not been due to the rapid secularization and moral degradation of the political and social culture? And have not important Catholic politicians been at the forefront of the cultural decline?
The need for evangelization of the movers and shakers has never been greater than now, and if the synod grapples with this issue the time will have been well spent.
And yes, God bless the Pope. Holy Spirit, guide the Pope (and all bishops throughout the world).
Mother Mary and St. Joseph and St. Michael, intercede for the protection of the Pope.
All Saints, pray for us.
One should evangelize. One should serve the poor.
Please forgive my ambihguity.
I forgive your misspelling as well.
I think the church is dying. Not hard to understand why. A lot of people realize they don’t need to go to Mass to have a fulfilling and enjoyable life. In fact, Mass just gets in the way of a fun weekend. The church going gay and ordaining women won’t fix the problem, as the progressive Protestant churches who have done those things are empty and dying too. Church is largely considered irrelevant to modern people’s lives. Until the church overcomes that enormous obstacle, it will continue to die.
All this synod horse puckey is just bureaucratic blather. The Diocese of San Jose is writing a pastoral plan based on the synod. They created a new position for implementing the synod, probably paying a hefty six-figure salary, and the 2nd draft document of the pastoral plan is astoundingly banal, full of corporate buzzwords.
I daresay that many bishops have no clue how to shepherd, and they are trying to remake the church in the image of third-rate corporate reorganization efforts.
The church of my youth was much better. The church of my middle age is grossly, laughably, embarrassingly inept and uninspiring.
If Benevacantism is correct, then none of this matters. At all.
Benevacantism was never correct, even when Benedict was alive.
This should settle everything: one who is holy cannot dissent from the pope.
“This should settle everything: one who is holy cannot dissent from the pope.” By dissent would you include criticism of some actions of his?
The Church has said that any “union” gay or het that involves illicit sexual activity cannot be blessed. Period.
But when two persons in a partnership are blessed together, it is their partnership that is being implicitly blessed. That’s the problem.
Let’s keep in mind that AI is writing comments and articles for us to read that are not true or favor one idea over another. The prediction from those in the know is that 90% of social media articles related to the next election, for both parties, will be AI-driven. How many of the above responses were written by real people?
Who is to know?