Calls For The Resignation Of Fernandez Grows As Church Divide Deepens

Please review post

Is The Church more divided now than at any time in history? Some scholars say yes.

Fernandez Should Resign

YouTube

Spotify

Sources

The Academy Calls for Pope Francis to Dismiss Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández

https://oldyosef.hkdavc.com/?p=1983

https://twitter.com/MLJHaynes/status/1750124546198327450/photo/1

Full English Text of Cardinal Zen’s Letter:

Faith

About “Fiducia Supplicans”

　　I received the “Pastoral Blessing of the “Statement” on “Fiducia Supplicans” published by the Office of Catholic Social Communications (OCSM) on December 23, 2023 (explaining the “Statement” issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on December 18th). The ODM article also appeared again in the Dec. 31 edition of the Catholic Newspaper.

　　I found that the OMB article was in error in two key places (the Sunday Examiner was not in error, so why didn’t the Catholic Newspaper match it?)

　　1. The original text says that the blessing is requested by “same-sex couples and others in relationships that are inconsistent with the Christian faith. The Dissemination Office says that the blessing is requested by “same-sex couples and others in unchristian relationships”.

　　The original text clearly states that it is “people” who are to be blessed, not those types of “relationships.

　　2. Verse 38 of the original text of the Declaration says that the clergy who give the blessing will pray for peace, health, tolerance of adversity, communication with one another, watch over one another, and ask God to shine on them, so that they may be empowered to carry out God’s will fully.

　　Of course, elsewhere in the statement, it only says “live better” or “live a full life”. It is not enough to say that “life is fulfilling”, for they may think that life in a same-sex union can be fulfilling, but verse 38 says “to fulfill God’s will”.

　　I did not pass the above question to the Broadcasting Office because even if I corrected the wording, there would still be a problem with the “statement”.

　　However, two or three days later, I saw a Ms. Law Yuen Wai Ha, who had serious doubts because she had read the OFCA’s erroneous report, and asked the OFCA to explain her doubts. So far, I have not seen any reply from the OFCA.

　　In fact, this is an important question. Why did the Diocese let the OCMA handle the matter? Why did the diocese let the OCA deal with it? Shouldn’t it at least be looked at by the Secretary General of the diocese? Many dioceses and bishops have given important explanations and negative responses.

　　

　　It is precisely because of these responses, which continue to appear on the Internet, that I have waited until now to decide to write some of my observations (although I have no connection with the administration of the diocese, I still have a duty to defend the reasoning of the Church).

　　The “Statement” of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith emphasizes repeatedly that no blessing should be misunderstood, and that the Church does not approve of the “sexual union” of a man and a woman of the same sex, or of a man and a woman who are not in conformity with the Church’s beliefs, as an alternative marriage. But the Statement goes on to say that in certain circumstances, out of pastoral love, blessings may be given to same-sex couples and to other men and women living in irregular relationships.

　　The lengthy “statement” leaves much to be desired and says that it will not be interpreted any further (par. 41).

　　Many bishops and episcopal conferences, especially in Africa and Eastern Europe, have solemnly ordered priests not to perform such blessings.

　　The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued another “statement” on January 4 of this year, which, on the one hand, strongly denies that the “statement” of December 18 is contrary to ecclesiastical reasoning, and on the other hand, recognizes that the bishops and episcopal conferences have reason to have certain doubts about it, and that it seems to them that they need a longer period of time to study it, and that they cannot permit priests to carry out the statement at the present time, which is something that the Holy See understands. This is tantamount to saying that the Declaration of December 18 is not valid for the time being.

　　Under these circumstances, we can safely discuss the two Statements, and I would like to contribute some of my views to the priests and brothers:

　　1. We should first understand what the Statements say. I do not know whether there are any Chinese translations of the Declarations of December 18 and January 4. It seems that there are no Chinese translations of the two Declarations so far because of the lack of translators in the Churches of Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. These two statements are in fact very complicated. In the Statement, it is said that blessing is either from the bottom up or from the top down. In fact, the Chinese word for “from the bottom up” is not a blessing at all, but a “praise”, while the Chinese word for “from the top down” is a “blessing”.

　　The word “spontaneous” in “statement” should not be translated as “active” because the opposite of active is passive, and application for blessing is of course active. In this context, it seems that the word “spontaneous” should be translated as “random”, “not specially arranged”. In this case, it seems that “spontaneous” should be translated as “random”, “not specially arranged”, “occurring naturally” at an opportunity.

　　”The Declaration says “for example, to bless a pilgrimage group”. It is neither possible nor necessary for a priest to clarify whether or not a pilgrimage group has couples living in “abnormal” sexual relationships. “What the Statement discusses are the “pairs of couples”. Although not specifically arranged, they are clearly couples living in those relationships. 2.

　2. The Declaration (§38) says that when couples ask for a blessing, they “may” also ask for God’s favor and strength, so that they may be able to do God’s will in full. If this were true, then it would be easy for a priest to introduce them to the Divine Will. But here’s the problem: the Statement says that the priest is not supposed to examine them to see if they have such an intention. So how can a priest give a blessing if he or she is not sure that they have such an intention, or if there is reason to suspect that they do not have such an intention at all?

　　3. The “statement” says that such blessings are given out of pastoral love, but doesn’t Scripture say that pastors are to protect the strong sheep, heal the wounded, and lead back those who have gone astray? The “statement” seems to say that they came as a “pair” and went back as a “pair” after the blessing; doesn’t that mean that they can, at least for the time being, continue to live in the “wrong”, i.e., sinful, way?

　　In the Gospel, there were times when people asked Jesus to heal them, but He first said, “Your sins are forgiven. His primary concern was to free people from their sins (and of course He had already given them the grace to confess their sins). If the priest is not sure that the “couple” he is dealing with intends to live in full observance of God’s way of life, or if he is sure that they do not recognize that they are living in sin at all, should he not introduce them to God’s will in the most loving manner?

　　4. The impression given by such a blessing actually creates confusion.

　　”The Statement emphasizes many times that confusion should be avoided, but the blessings encouraged by the Statement do in fact create confusion.

　　The secular media will of course intentionally add to the confusion, but why doesn’t the Holy See discourage pro-LGBTQ pastors in the Church such as Fr. James Martin, S.J., or Sr. Jeannine Gramick from intentionally creating confusion or simply failing to follow some of the rules instructed in the Statement, as Germany and certain other dioceses have done? Is it consistent with pastoral principles to create confusion on this important issue?

　　In many areas, especially in the “fringe areas” often referred to by the Pope, the culture is strongly opposed to condoning or even legally penalizing same-sex relationships. Is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith really unaware of this?

　　5. Most seriously: the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s “statement” says that sexual behavior in same-sex relationships has its goodness, that it can “progress” and “grow”. Similarly, the Pope (or more likely the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), in his reply to the five Cardinals’ question, also said that same-sex sexual love is “similar” to marital love! This is an absolute subjective error. According to objective truth, that behavior is a grave sin and can never be good.

　　Pope Benedict said, “If there is no foundation in truth, love is an empty shell into which anything can be put.”

　　If the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is not committing a heresy by claiming a serious sin as “good,” then shouldn’t the Prefect resign or be dismissed?

　　Lastly, isn’t the Global Synod of Bishops underway? It is hoped that the bishops will finally be able to debate these issues on their own (without having to be led by the facilitators) and reach unanimous conclusions under the leadership of the Holy Spirit at their meeting in October. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s preemptive “statement” is in grave contempt of the office of the bishops (the successors of the Apostles, the brothers of the Pope)!

Church Divide

YouTube

Spotify

Sources

https://www.ncregister.com/news/marking-one-month-of-fiducia-supplicans-opposition-shows-no-signs-of-abating

© 2024, Anthony Stine. All rights reserved. You may reuse or copy this post by giving credit and providing a link.