By Fr. Carlos Zepeda
It wasn’t too long ago that we were recording a podcast denouncing the scandal caused by the Vatican with the approval of so-called transgenders for Baptism and to function as sponsors. In that podcast, we stated that it was only a matter of time, perhaps a few months or a couple years before we would hear from the modernist Rome that homosexual unions were to be approved.
We were certainly wrong in our estimation of the time-frame. Indeed, these days it is hard to keep track on the scandals, immoralities and blasphemies that come from Rome. Not a Catholic Rome certainly, but a Vatican city usurped and invaded by the enemies of the Church.
What is in the declaration “Fiducia Supplicans”?
It is news now revolving all around the world that on December the 18th, the “Dicastery of the Faith” (one wonders which faith) issued a new declaration called “Fiducia Supplicans” with a deceitful subtitle pretending that the document was written to better explain the “nature of blessings”. However, upon reading the document, even the least cautious will discover the whole purpose of it is to give the Vatican’s modernist-style (one step to the right, two steps to the left) scandalous approval to same sex-unions.
I say Modernist, because the document indeed follows a well-known strategy used by these heretics. To quote St. Pius X in His Encyclical “Pascendi”: “In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful”.
And so, the Declaration in question zigzags, in a dizzying way, from protestations of fidelity to the perennial teaching of the Church regarding marriage, to the claim that same-sex unions can have “what classical theology calls actual grace”; From claiming that Liturgical blessings require the keeping of the commandments, to inventing a new form of blessings that can be given to sinful lifestyles; from giving the Priests a hard rule never to make blessings of same-sex couples liturgical, to letting them know that the reason for this “hard set” rule, is that the Vatican wishes for them to have freedom from all rules.
Why should good Catholics care about what this document contains?
Among Catholics who are informed of their faith and follow the true teachings and morals of the Church, (what people are given to call nowadays “Traditional Catholics”) the disgusting obfuscation of this document and whatever its details are, have little interest. We know where we stand. There was (to put an analogy) a big Bus called Vatican II heading for a cliff. We jumped out of it, right on time, and are driving safely on the Bus called “True Catholic Church”. When we hear that the “Vatican II” bus is stumbling down the cliff, it is no surprise to us or wonder. If anything, it makes us feel more assured of our previously made decision, and take a sigh of relief as we give thanks to God for our blessings.
This giving thanks to God, might alone be a good reason to learn about this new aberration from the Dicastery. But as we shrink from reading more (or hearing more about this), I will offer the reader more reasons to undergo this torture to good-thinking minds, and logical brains.
We all have friends and acquaintances who are still not convinced of the wickedness of these people. As a matter of fact, there might be some well-intentioned Catholics out there, reading this article, who are still trying to rescue (somehow) the latest publication from the Vatican. These poor souls, who are struggling to come to grips with a hard truth, need to see this document dissected, and its true meaning explained, lest they be deceived.
Not only that: We would be delusional to think that these false doctrines do not affect us or our family. They do. Our children are daily bombarded by LGBT propaganda, whether parents see it or not; and this Vatican Declaration is yet another blow. Will our children read it? No. But this document will validate, enforce, and embolden all those teachers, politicians, media personalities, leaders of thought (or error), who in the end will come, one way or another to push their influence on our children. And we must be prepared to give them the weapons to defend themselves, and the arguments to defeat error.
For these reasons and others, we must man-up, and face the intellectual cringe of analyzing “Fiducia Supplicans”.
An Analysis of the Document
I believe that for a more practical and useful understanding of it, rather than presenting to the reader a summary of texts, we can begin by giving him the obvious intentions of it all.
1st. The authors begin by setting an explanation for the document itself: The “dubia” recently posed to Francis, where it was asked whether if the Church had the power to bless same-sex unions or not, becomes the triggering factor. The Pope replied to the “dubia”, and now this document pretends to expand on it.
2.- Then the writers proceed to give an anesthetic to the readers, right before they jam utter immorality down their throats. A whole section is devoted to declare that Francis has responded that marriage cannot take place between two persons of the same-sex. In other words gay-marriage is not happening.
At this point, it is worth mentioning a significant issue with the Declaration.
First Hidden Danger in “Fiducia Supplicans” – Creating a new sort of union for same-sex couples.
While the document affirms once and again that it will not validate gay “marriage” at the same time it NEVER condemns gay “unions”. On the contrary, it validates them to a great extent. At this point, whether if gay people can marry in the Catholic Church is irrelevant.
I hate to break these news to the people in the Novus Ordo Church, but in their churches, (generally speaking) nobody cares about marriage anymore. Not even “straight” people want to marry! So who will care a bit if gay people cannot marry? Now the Vatican II Church at least as a niche for them, and that’s all that matters. Now, there will be “straight” marriage, and “gay unions”. The approval tacit in these measures should not be underestimated.
We continue with our analysis.
3.- So, the marriage door is closed. Now, which door can be opened instead? Well, the door of blessings. The authors are about to expand in a long and intolerable dissertation of the nature and division of blessings, to come to the finding of the one kind of blessing that can be given to sexually-deviated people.
On the next section, the document for a moment, wonders (almost involuntarily) into what seems good Catholic Theology, as it explains the nature of Liturgical Blessings. These blessings -it assures us- “require that what is blessed be conformed to God’s will”, and “are primarily aimed at giving glory to God for his gifts, asking for his favors, and restraining the power of evil in the world.”… A sigh of relief for the troubled Catholic, urging to find some Catholic words coming from the See of St. Peter. But the relief will be soon gone, unfortunately.
4.- The Document proceeds to tell us: “One must also avoid the risk of reducing the meaning of blessings to this point of view alone”… and it proceeds to explain that blessings… well, not all are created equal.
There are “descending” blessings, which bring down gifts from God above to us, and “ascending” blessings, which… well… one cannot really distinguish from what we old-fashioned Catholics used to call “prayer”. Are the ascending blessings supposed to mean that we give anything to God? The patient, (or theologically suicidal) reader, will be disappointed to find out that his efforts to understand it will be in vain, for although the document expands on this doctrine quite a bit, quoting examples from the old testament profusely, this distinction proves absolutely useless, for in the end, when it comes to the blessings given to gay couples, they will include both “descending” and “ascending”. One is tempted to emphasize that there will be some descending alright, but not quite related to any “blessing”.
5.- As the document proceeds, the groundwork is placed for the main conclusion. A new section is devoted to explaining the nature of the petitioner of the blessing: “Pope Francis urges us to contemplate… the fact that “when one asks for a blessing, one is expressing a petition for God’s assistance, a plea to live better, and confidence in a Father who can help us live better.”. Granted. Are we about to hear that there is repentance from sin? That one wishes for the power and the grace to keep the commandments? To abandon one’s sinful state in life? One’s slavery to vices? Oh! How refreshing it would be to hear some truth! Instead, the document inserts itself into a modernist jungle of buzz-words, equivocal terms, the purposeful avoidance of clarity. The petitioner of the blessing has “a sincere openness to transcendence”, he “desires to break out of the narrow confines of this world”, and yes, he “does not trust in his strength alone” and “trusts in God’s mercy” but repentance, the desire at least to convert, are as absent from this declaration, as the inspiration of the Holy Ghost was from the writers.
6.- From the nature of the petitioner the author begins forming the blurry idea of a form of blessing, that apparently, is so disconnected from the Sacraments themselves, – “blessings should be evaluated as acts of devotion that “are external to the celebration of the Holy Eucharist and of the other sacraments.” -that for some reason, do not require from the recipient the repentance of sin, to confer some sort of grace upon him, and so it calls the reader, regarding those who are “in situations that are morally unacceptable from an objective point of view”, to “account for the fact that “pastoral charity requires us not to treat simply as ‘sinners’ those whose guilt or responsibility may be attenuated by various factors affecting subjective imputability.”… A blessing, in short, that can be given even if the person is impenitent, and obstinate in sin. Ah! Poor well intentioned clergyman from the Vatican II Church!… many of them perhaps will consider that this is all nowhere to be found in good Catholic Theology. But Francis’ Dicastery of the Faith will leave for them no corner. As their conscience firmly rebukes them, bringing back to them the teachings (albeit incomplete perhaps but still useful) of their childhood Catechism, of the ten commandments, of the truths of grace, the state of mortal sin, etc., this instructions rushes to silence their remorse with these words: “The Church, moreover, must shy away from resting its pastoral praxis on the fixed nature of certain doctrinal or disciplinary schemes,” and “when people ask for a blessing, an exhaustive moral analysis should not be placed as a precondition”… that conscience better be quiet! That conscience which “leads to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism”.
One begins to smell smoke and Sulphur. And certainly, the evil doctrines expounded in the document are about to get much worse. But here it is worthwhile pointing out yet another not-so hidden deviation:
Second Hidden Danger in “Fiducia Supplicans” – ” – Once again: Situational Ethics.
1952. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is still a young seminarian, under Pius XII. The Congregation of the Holy Office issues a declaration whereby it “interdicts and prohibits this doctrine of “Situation Ethics” from being taught or approved.. or being propagated or defended.” This condemned notion could be defined simply as the justification of a person’s sins, based on the subjective circumstances that surround them. It is the very foundation of the famous “Who am I to judge” from Bergoglio, for the permission to give communion to couples living in sin in “Amoris Laetitia”, and for what we read in this very same declaration. One can almost hear Bergoglio arguing with the Saintly Pope Pius XII, who responds to him with this words, from his Radio Message from March 23 1952, “La Famiglia”: “The New Morality affirms that the Church instead of fostering the law of human liberty and of love, and of demanding of you… bases itself almost exclusively and with excessive rigidity on the firmness and intransigence of moral laws, frequently resorting to the terms “you are obliged”, “it is not licit”, which has (they say) too much of an air of a degrading pedantry…” and the Pope continues replying to those precursors of Bergoglio: “It so happens that the accusation of oppressive rigidity made against the Church by this “New Morality”, in reality attacks in the first place the adorable Person of Christ Himself”
Finally: The tacit approval of same-sex unions.
7.-Finally we come to the ultimate blow. The ground is set, the mind is confused, the reader is probably gone by now to better occupations. The words that are to open pandora’s box can now be typed in. The authors begin by bluntly stating that: “pastoral prudence and wisdom—avoiding all serious forms of scandal and confusion among the faithful—may suggest that the ordained minister join in the prayer of those persons who, although in a union that cannot be compared in any way to a marriage, desire to entrust themselves to the Lord and his mercy, to invoke his help, and to be guided to a greater understanding of his plan of love and of truth”
Again, nothing about departing from sin. Then, without any dissimulation, the subtitle “Blessings of Couples in Irregular Situations and of Couples of the Same Sex” leaves no doubt as to the true purpose of the document. And it states:
“here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex, the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage. In such cases, a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit. These forms of blessing express a supplication that God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his Spirit—what classical theology calls “actual grace”—so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love.”
“It so happens that the accusation of oppressive rigidity made against the Church by this “New Morality”, in reality attacks in the first place the adorable Person of Christ Himself “
Pope Pius XII
The errors and evil teachings contained in this text
This would be, if we were in better times, the quote used to begin a process of heresy against Bergoglio and whoever else signed this document, and to be inserted in a condemnation inspired by the Holy Ghost followed by the words: “Anathema Sit”. Let us point out some of the most blatant errors in it.
- 1st. It is not a toleration (that would be bad enough) but an instruction. The Dicastery here is not stating something that is already happening and tolerating it, it is rather actively leading the pastors to the blessing of “gay” couples, or couples living in sin. It is an actual instruction. This is a point that becomes relevant, specially when considering that the document claims to have the “authoritative” support of Francis.
- 2nd. The paragraph specifically states (contrary to what some of its defenders claim) that these blessings are not only “ascending” that is, an elevation of the wishes (according to their own logic anyway) of the petitioner to God, but also “descending” from God upon those, who are actively, living in sin, and in scandal. This is reinforced by the statement that their relationships will be “enriched” with the Holy Spirit; and if that wasn’t enough, the blessing is said to beg for them “actual graces”, again, with no mention of repentance. This last factor is significant, for it is tantamount to declaring that actual grace, (and therefore sanctifying grace which is the foundation of it) can be present in homosexual relationships. It is quite an explicit acceptance of “gay” unions.
- 3rd. The third point is implicit in the Second. The paragraph validates, quite willingly, the sinful relationships in question, by asking that they are enriched, healed, elevated, recognizing that they have in them things that are true, good, humanly valid, and asking that they may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, a petition which is delusional, since the relationship itself is incompatible with the Gospel, and cannot but by broken in order to lead to fidelity to the Word of God.
8.- What follows is a set of exhortations and guidelines regarding the blessings. Emphasis is once again made on the humble request of the sinner and his trust in God, lacking of course any concept of repentance or contrition. More follows in this almost final section of the document, but before we continue, we may point out here another Doctrinal booby trap:
Third Hidden Danger in “Fiducia Supplicans” – The lack of a call to repentance.
The whole document as a matter of fact, lacks entirely any call to repentance, or conversion, or contrition for sin. In fact, careful effort is made never to call such relationships “sinful”, one struggles even to find a slight indication to them as being inferior to marriage in any way. They are simply “different”, and but in one line or two, no mention is made of their immorality. And to justify the blessing given to those living in sin, it tells us: “the grace of God works in the lives of those who do not claim to be righteous” Forgetting that according to Catholic Theology, this is true, only as long as the person is also contrite for their sins; and it states also, with truth-sounding words that “God never turns away anyone who approaches him!” forgetting that according to St. Augustine, we approach God not by our physical steps, but by the movement of our soul, in the contrition for our sins, and a desire to amend our lives.
To Continue with the Analysis:
To continue with the declaration, a set of instructions follow, which could be summarized in two points: Such blessings are never to be made liturgical and they should be separated from any rite resembling marriage:
“For this reason, one should neither provide for nor promote a ritual for the blessings of couples in an irregular situation.”
“to avoid any form of confusion or scandal, when the prayer of blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation … this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding. The same applies when the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple.”
However, just as the conservatives at Angelus Press and The Remnant were getting their hopes up, they are quickly deflated when in the next paragraphs the Priest (or protestant pastor competitor at this point) is entirely free to do any ceremony with any rite, with any word, at any place, as long as he doesn’t call it marriage:
“At the same time, one should not prevent or prohibit the Church’s closeness to people… In a brief prayer preceding this spontaneous blessing, the ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance—but also God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely.”
Mutual assistance, by the way, is one of the secondary purposes of marriage. One that remains for couples who cannot bear children.
Did the document then forbid the celebration of these “unions” in a church? Hardly so.
“Such a blessing may instead find its place in other contexts, such as a visit to a shrine, a meeting with a priest, a prayer recited in a group, or during a pilgrimage. Indeed, through these blessings that are given not through the ritual forms proper to the liturgy but as an expression of the Church’s maternal heart—similar to those that emanate from the core of popular piety—there is no intention to legitimize anything, but rather to open one’s life to God…”
here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex, the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage. In such cases, a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God“…
A killer might as well declare to me with a smiling and kindly face that he has no intend to kill me, while pulling the trigger.
Should one be tempted to think that the repeated prohibition to “provide a ritual” for the blessing of these unions emanates from a zeal to stop them, prevent them, or regulate them, the authors are careful enough to also pop that bubble:
“it is essential to grasp the Holy Father’s concern that these non-ritualized blessings never cease being simple gestures … careful that they should not become a liturgical or semi-liturgical act, similar to a sacrament. Indeed, such a ritualization would constitute a serious impoverishment because it would subject a gesture of great value in popular piety to excessive control, depriving ministers of freedom and spontaneity in their pastoral accompaniment of people’s lives.”
So, the concern is rather, that the freedom to indulge in these a-liturgical, and immoral activities, might be hindered.
The Document ends with a few attempts to spiritual exhortations, leaving the reader feeling much as if a piano had landed on his head. Specially, if the poor soul still labors under the illusion that the authorities of the Church after Vatican II where Catholic and legitimate. The pens arise, the keyboards are pressed, and articles submitted, and everywhere possible, most outlets are wiggling their way to figure out how to make Francis and his Dicastery not say what they just said. Surely, this is not authoritative, but to their dismay, this time the authors didn’t think of leaving a way out for them, and had the bad idea of writing at the end of it all:
“Taking the above points into account and following the authoritative teaching of Pope Francis…”
Yes. Right above the signature.
We might write this analysis with some sarcasm, but I assure the reader, with no humor. Nothing humorous can emanate from this wickedness, and the purpose of the author is certainly not to provoke any laughter or ironic remarks in the reader, but rather to better color the picture of the hypocrisy and malevolence of the people behind these schemes.
It is certainly something to be lamented. Through the perverse, and one cannot but say it, diabolical actions of these impostors seating in the Vatican, many souls will be lost. Priests will lose the power to preach against sin, as their supposed head contradicts them, Parents will lose the battle they waged against the indoctrination of the LGBT agenda, when the Priest goes and bless their homosexual or lesbian child. People with same-sex attraction, who have perhaps battled at great length to master their inclinations in the pursuit of chastity see themselves now betrayed and ridiculed. Marriages will descend even more, as the line has blurred between a legitimate union and a sinful one.
And something perhaps few have considered, ALL priests around the world, valid or invalid, Novus Ordo or traditional, from the recognize and resist camp, or sedevacantist, all are now put on the spot, as in the airports, the streets, the pharmacies, the schools, the hospitals, couples of the same-sex may approach them and demand that (according to the Vatican) they receive a blessing.