CV NEWS FEED // Weeks after the release of Fiducia Supplicans (FS), the December 18 document best known for allowing priests to bless “same-sex couples,” the Vatican continues to field global pushback from bishops, conferences, and religious congregations.
Far from settling the issue of blessings conferred upon couples in “irregular” circumstances, FS has instead prompted disparate and even contradictory responses from the hierarchy.
The declaration, titled in English “On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings,” bears the signature of Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Congregation of the Faith, and was approved by Pope Francis.
According to the text, the goal of the document was to put an end to the controversial issue of the blessings of non-married couples by establishing the conditions in which Catholic priests are allowed to bless certain “couples,” including “same-sex couples,” while explicitly forbidding any formality, prepared text, dress, or even gesture that might give the appearance of equating such “merely pastoral” blessings with the unchanged institution of Catholic marriage.
The subsequent flurry of public criticisms from Catholics around the world has not been seen since 1968, when Blessed Paul VI promulgated Humanae Vitae, restating the Church’s unchanging teaching on contraception.
Some of the negative reactions from Catholic quarters around the world came in response to media headlines such as “Vatican approves blessing for same-sex couples.” Many others, however, came in response to what concerned Catholics regarded as immediate abuse of the Church’s norms by prominent Catholic priests.
Jesuit priest Fr. James Martin, a longtime advocate of changing Catholic doctrine on sexuality, promptly had himself photographed blessing a “gay couple” for a New York Times article. Martin, the reporter commented, had “waited years for the privilege of saying such a prayer, however simple, out in the open.”
Africa
The swell of reactions against the Vatican document – and even against Pope Francis himself – started, however, in Africa. Less than 24 hours after the publication of FS, the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria issued a unified statement that “there is no possibility in the Church of blessing same-sex unions and activities. That would go against God’s law, the teachings of the Church, the laws of our nation, and the cultural sensibilities of our people.”
The bishops of Malawi, Ghana, and Zambia quickly issued similar statements, while the bishops of Zimbabwe in their own statement pointed out that “locally, many Catholics and those who look up to the Catholic Church are asking questions and wondering if the declaration marks a paradigm shift in the doctrine of the Church on marriage.” Therefore,
in respect of the law of the land, our culture, and for moral reasons, we instruct pastors to desist from actions that may be deemed as the blessing of same-sex unions bringing confusion and even scandal to our people.
Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, archbishop emeritus of Durban, South Africa, complained on X (formerly Twitter) that the Vatican document “lacks one essential word. Yet that word was the first on Jesus’ lips when he delivered his very first teaching: ‘Repent & Believe in the Gospel!’” Napier is regarded as one of the most orthodox, outspoken voices in Africa.
CatholicVote has been closely followed the unprecedented number of worldwide Catholic reactions to the controversial document. As of December 30, CatholicVote has reported:
- Archbishop Tomash Peta of Saint Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan, joined by Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider, became the first metropolitan prelate to denounce the document, stating it was a “great deception” and forbidding all priests of the archdiocese from offering blessings to couples. FS, they added, will have “far-reaching and destructive consequences” and align the Church, at least in practice, with gender ideology.
- The statement of a popular Spanish bishop, José Ignacio Munilla, who claimed that, if the DDF would have followed a simple process of “synodality” with bishops around the world, the unprecedented pushback could have been avoided.
- The public statement of a bishop in the Netherlands, Robert Gerardus Mutsaerts of the diocese of Hertogenbosch, who argued that the Vatican document “is not pastoral, nor is it merciful, but rather unloving.” Mutsaerts pleaded with Pope Francis: “Holy Father, please, be clear! You are not helping anyone with this! No one at all!”
- The Catholic Bishops of Ukraine stated that “we see a danger in ambiguous formulations (in the Vatican Document) that cause divergent interpretations among the faithful.” The Ukrainian bishops concluded that “what we perceive as lacking in the document is that the Gospel calls sinners to conversion, and without a call to leave the sinful life of homosexual couples, the blessing may look like an approval.”
- The official reactions of several U.S. Bishops, from the enthusiastic support of Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago to the cautious statement of the diocese of Wichita, Kansas, whose spokesperson told Channel 12 News that “the Diocese will respectfully decline to comment as we learn more about the doctrinal declaration issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.”
- The brutally honest reaction of Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, emeritus of Philadelphia, who wrote in the religious journal First Things that the pope “characterizing fidelity to Catholic belief and practice as ‘fearfully sticking to rules’… is irresponsible and false.” Chaput stated “The faithful deserve better than such treatment.” The archbishop emeritus concluded by acknowledging that “saying these things, of course, will invite claims of ‘disloyalty.’” but “the real disloyalty is not speaking the truth with love. And that word ‘love’ is not some free-floating balloon of goodwill. It’s an empty shell without the truth to fill it.”
- The pastoral letter of Bishop John F. Doerfler of Marquette instructing his priests to hold controversial blessings “in private in order to avoid scandal and confusion.” “In granting such spontaneous blessings, great care is to be taken to avoid scandal or to give the impression of condoning a lifestyle contrary to Church teaching,” Doerfler wrote. “We lack charity, and we do not serve people if we foster confusion or lack clarity in our teaching and pastoral practice.”
- The unified statement of the two Bishops of South Dakota, Peter M. Muhich of Rapid City and Donald E. DeGrood of Sioux Falls, acknowledging that “controversy has followed publication of [Fiducia Supplicans], as some have hailed a supposed novel change in the Church’s perennial teaching on sexuality, or praised it as a ‘step’ towards such a change.” “There should be no ambiguity as regards this truth: the ministers of the Church have no power to bless sin. To do so would be a perversion of the very purpose of a blessing,” the bishops continued, insisting that “any sort of blessing that would give the semblance of condoning sin is not to be granted.”
- The statement of the British Confraternity of Catholic Clergy claiming that the blessings of “same-sex couples,” as described by the Vatican document, “would inevitably lead to scandal.” Therefore. “with honest parresia,” a Greek word that means “obligation to speak the truth,” “we conclude that such blessings are theologically, pastorally and practically inadmissible.”
- The order issued by the Congregation of the Marians of the Immaculate Conception – best known in the U.S. for their work promoting the message of Divine Mercy from the National Shrine of The Divine Mercy in Stockbridge, Massachusetts – establishing that their “ordained deacons and/or priests are prohibited from blessing irregular relationships, unions, or same-sex couples in the United States and Argentina, or while traveling abroad.” The order also emphasized that it “applies to all Marian clergy regardless of diocesan policies.” “We see no situation in which such a blessing of a couple could be properly and adequately distinguished from some level of approval of the irregular relationship, leading to the scandal of the faithful,” the order explained. “Such blessings [liturgical or spontaneous] would work against the legitimate care a priest or deacon owes to his flock.”
- The definitive “no” to the implementation of the document stated by Uruguayan Cardinal Daniel Sturla – regarded as a friend and ally of Pope Francis in South America. Sturla said during an interview with a local newspaper that Fiducia Supplicans is a confusing, simultaneous “yes but no” regarding the controversial issue of “same-sex” blessings.
- The statement of the bishop of Formosa in Brazil, who consulted his clergy and lay leaders to find out if carrying out the blessings requested by the Vatican document “would cause scandal and misunderstanding, as the declaration itself foresees this for the analysis of the bishops.” The bishop found that “everyone was unanimous” in saying that the diocese of Formosa “is not in a position to implement these suggestions.”
- The stringent guidelines issued by Bishop François Beyrouti, head of the Melkite Catholic Diocese of Newton (which encompasses all Melkite parishes in the United States). Beyrouti stated that the Vatican document may create confusion among the faithful and informed Melkite priests that they cannot bless same-sex couples or couples in irregular situations without his written permission. Beyrouti warned that “disregard for this prescription will result in canonical penalties.”
- The roundtable of experts from Catholic Answers commenting on the nature and consequences of the Vatican document’s release. During the panel, CA President Christopher Check asked if the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith could genuinely not see the general confusion coming. “If someone at the Vatican did know, and kept silent, then we have a lack of what we called in the Marine Corps ‘moral courage.’” said Check. “If the reaction was anticipated and the document released all the same, then we have an act that is, at the very least, morally problematic, and probably much worse.”
- The concern of Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Hilarion, an expert in Catholic-Orthodox relations. The Vatican document “is indeed a revolution, a big change, and I personally think it is a very unfortunate change because it is a trap and loophole,” Hilarion said. “It gives the opportunity to those priests who want to bless homosexual couples to do [it].” Hilarion predicted that “very soon it will become a big industry in the Catholic Church because it will be on demand. Such priests will be very popular in certain circles and they will practice these blessings with permission from the Vatican.”