Fiducia Supplicans: Sound Episcopal Reactions in Europe

Among these reactions, we must first mention that of Tomasz Peta, Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Sainte-Marie in Astana, and his auxiliary bishop,  Athanasius Schneider. Their position was quick, courageous, and very firm. 

Statement from the Archdiocese of St. Mary in Astana

The text immediately notes that “the manifest purpose of the Declaration of the Holy See, Fiducia supplicans, is to allow ‘the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and of same-sex couples.’ At the same time, the document insists that such blessings are performed ‘without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage.”

“The fact that the document does not give permission for the ‘marriage’ of same-sex couples should not blind pastors and faithful to the great deception and the evil that resides in the very permission to bless couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples. Such a blessing directly and seriously contradicts Divine Revelation and the uninterrupted, bimillennial doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church.”

The commentary sees the looming disaster: “Therefore, none, not even the most beautiful, of the statements contained in this Declaration of the Holy See, can minimize the far-reaching and destructive consequences resulting from this effort to legitimize such blessings. With such blessings, the Catholic Church becomes, if not in theory, then in practice, a propagandist of the globalist and ungodly ‘gender ideology.’”

Then comes the practical consequence for the diocese: “We exhort and prohibit priests and faithful of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana from accepting or performing any form of blessing whatsoever of couples in an irregular situation and same-sex couples.”

“It goes without saying that every sincerely repentant sinner with the firm intention to no longer sin and to put an end to his public sinful situation (such as, e.g., cohabitation outside of a canonically valid marriage, or union between people of the same sex), can receive a blessing.”

Finally, the two bishops follow the example of St. Paul: “With sincere brotherly love, and with due respect, we address Pope Francis, who, by allowing the blessing of couples in an irregular situation and same-sex couples, ‘does not walk uprightly according to the truth of Gospel’ (cf. Gal 2:14), to borrow the words with which St. Paul the Apostle publicly admonished the first pope in Antioch.” In conclusion, they call on Pope Francis to revoke the DDF Declaration.

The Ukrainian Episcopal Conference

Ukrainian bishops reacted quickly. They note straight away that “the notion of blessing same-sex couples, or even sacramentally unregulated couples, can be interpreted as legalizing these relationships.”

They also note: “It seems that the text does not clearly distinguish between a person and his state, mercifully accepting that person and expressing disagreement with his sin.” And they regret the distinction between irregular and same-sex couples, treated in the same way, who, in their eyes, should be treated separately.

Finally they affirm that “what is missing from the document is that the Gospel calls sinners to conversion and that, without a call to leave the sinful life of homosexual couples, the blessing can seem like an approval.” 

Bishop Marian Eleganti

Bishop Eleganti is auxiliary bishop emeritus of the diocese of Chur, Switzerland. He has commented on Fiducia supplicans on his personal blog. He immediately noticed the divergences in the reception of the text, then he put his finger on the wound: “You cannot bless a couple but not bless their union, bless a couple but not ‘convalidate’ their objectively sinful lifestyle, as is attempted.”

He notes that the innovation in relation to tradition, claimed by Cardinal Manuel Fernandez, is “a nonsensical conceptual neologism” because “popes, like bishops, are guardians of the Church’s teaching and its unbroken tradition. Truths are eternal and do not change with the spirit of the age.”

Then he provides a very relevant analysis. He states that “blessings without the right inner disposition of the administrator and the recipient are ineffective, because blessings do not work ex opere operato like the sacraments. They are sacramentals. There is no new, expanded understanding in this regard, only false assertions.” This is very accurate theologically.

He continues: “In the traditional understanding, there is no first class (liturgical) and second class (spontaneous) blessing by priests. However, if the right inner disposition is given in our context, these people try to repent, to give up an objectively sinful practice (concubinage and sexual interaction) and to correct it.”

“For this, they can receive the blessing for growth in grace and for the success of their moral efforts and their next steps in the good direction, but not as a couple, because of the misunderstanding and impossibility of such a blessing.”

The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy

This association, representing 500 British priests, issued a letter reaffirming the Church's teaching on marriage and homosexual unions after the “widespread confusion” that followed the Fiducia supplicans statement issued by the Vatican. After quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the condemnation of homosexuality, the letter continues:

“It is in this context that we must assess the recent document Fiducia Supplicans which proposes a call for discernment which may lead to bestowing blessings on those in same-sex or unmarried unions.” The letter “notes” of the pastoral desire to help people renew their lives by relying on natural goodwill and virtue.

But, it then asserts: “We see no situation in which such a blessing of a couple could be properly and adequately distinguished from a some level of approval. Thus, it would inevitably lead to scandal –to the individuals concerned – to those involved directly or indirectly in the blessing – or to the minister himself.”

Finally, the signatories fear “that the practice of these blessings would confuse the faithful over the actual theology of marriage and human sexuality. Indeed, from the comments in the media over the past few days, and from concerns passed on to us by the faithful, we can already see such misunderstandings.”

They conclude that “such blessings would work against the legitimate care a priest owes to his flock,” and that “from our own experience as pastors we conclude that such blessings are pastorally and practically inadmissible.”