Patience and trust in the Lord. I watched the video of His Holiness answering the question and in a clear and concise manner he said, essentially, what Francis permitted was the same as blessing everyone at the end of Mass or at the end of a Papal audience while making the clearest statement yet that the German bishops are not to introduce formalized ritualistic blessings for couples in "irregular situations" because the Holy See cannot permit it. I can see years from now either Leo or his successor, depending upon implementation of Fiducia Supplicans and/or attempts to abuse its limited instruction, issuing a motu proprio that says, essentially, since the promulgation of Fiducia Supplicans, elements within the Church have misunderstood it and have sought to ritualize blessings for homosexual couples, thereby necessitating a clarifying motu proprio to pretty much say what Leo said on the plane. That's sort of what Francis did when he superseded Summorum Pontificum regarding the Extraordinary Form; claimed data and feedback regarding implementation showed fragmentation and division in the Church that necessitated clarification. I did not share that view as a whole, but of course there are certain communities of traditionalists who really isolated themselves. So long as it concerns matters of discipline and practice (and not dogma), things can always be changed.
I can't help but notice what looks like a pattern of hedging in all of these statements:
- "to go beyond this today, I believe, could cause more disunity than unity"...but maybe one could go beyond this tomorrow, if and when it would not be so disunifying?
- "For now… I’m trying not to continue to polarize or promote polarization in the Church"...for now, but maybe later things will be different?
- "I think we have to change attitudes before we even think about changing what the Church says about any given question." But maybe after we change attitudes, then we can think about changing what the Church says?
- I find it highly unlikely, certainly in the near future, that the Church’s doctrine in terms of what the Church teaches about sexuality, what the Church teaches about marriage, [will change].” Not in the near future, but maybe in the mid-to-far future?
- "I think that the Church’s teaching will continue as it is". Think, but aren't sure?
I am really happy to hear him straight up say there are more important issues than the gender and marriage ones that are so huge and sensitive in the US. But agree I have an eyebrow raised at some of these statements. I think (to borrow from him lol) the hedging seems to be a characteristic of his off the cuff speech and may not actually reflect what he thinks.
I kind of wonder if he is, being only a year into his ministry, still feeling his way around dealing with the press and trying not to create another wave of news that he sees as an energy sucking distraction. I also don’t like the hedging, but I suspect, as he matures in this office, statements will be delivered at least a touch more forcefully. Also, Theology of the Body teaches us that our sexuality is in fact a fantastically, inescapably grand issue, so to say it isn’t a big issue is a head scratcher.
I mean it’s both and. Your TOTB point is obviously dead on but also doesn’t it seem like all any first world catholic want to talk about is everything to do with sex, where as he just got done with all these local Churches in Africa and they have tons of different issues 🤷🏽♀️.
I mean I guess polygamy does come up places, but nobody is hedging on that one.
Um, I can't say I run into a lot of first world Catholics who only want to talk about things having to do with sex... certain first world non-Catholics, maybe.
To be fair, the last time I talked with a fellow Catholic, the topic came up, but that was because the question of what Albigensians believe came up, because we were talking about Dominicans and scholasticism and why on earth Aquinas was going through the proofs of God in the Summa when it was written for seminarians who presumably believe God exists. And good grief those heretics were messed up. But I don't think there's many who talk Catholicism mainly for the delight of discussing sexual ethics.
Problems with homosexuality, rape, fornication, etc. do come up in Africa, it's just not talked about so much, culturally, and deviancy is not considered to be a cause for celebration. You can avoid a lot of talking about sins when everyone agrees they are sins.
lol I’m sorry for imprecise speech - I don’t have these conversations in person either. It’s the combox, social media, legacy media headlines that go on and on, over and over on all topics sexuality. Right bc culturally we are being shouted at that These topics aren’t sins.
As we say to my kids, “asked and answered.”
But people won’t let it go (look at synodal way topics in Germany ). That’s what I meant, not that I discuss sex with every person I encounter lol.
Not a big issue, subject, reality, but, not a priority. He knows the issues are important. The JPII theology of the body theology and spirituality are a good but among the U.S. Catholic clerical and lay elites it did not leave room for many other important moral issues. Pope Leo is telling all of us that morality is predicated of all life from conception to natural death. Its simply a reminder in new American skins. He will and can only teach faithfulness to mater ecclesia.
I find it weird that Francis is always brought up as though he was the final authority on whatever topic. As you point out, less than 50 years ago we had JPII and Theology of the Body which is much deeper and broader than Fiducia Supplicans (I know FS is for a different purpose than TOB, but my point stands). I remember JD pointing out the apparent need of clerics to constantly reference Pope Francis and that seems to be ongoing even in this next pontificate, even though the Church has a lot more to say (on just about any subject) than simply what Francis said.
I noticed he's always pointing to conversion (or lackthereof) as the key issue here, especially in regards to the third quote you referenced. If there isn't genuine conversion in a person, then doctrine just becomes impossible-to-follow moralism. That's why some would want to change it, especially in regards to sexuality. He's going to the root of the disunity.
At the same rate, the "I think" kind of rhetoric might be a vestige of American parlance of people his age or region. Not sure, but I get the frustration.
I agree about the style of speaking. I do find it frustrating sometimes when I encounter it, but I would not take it as evidence of a particular take. He's very tired, speaking off the cuff, and hedging most likely as a way to be non confrontational, while still making an overall good point. Perhaps to his way of thinking, being more direct would turn more people off listening to the main idea. I don't know if I agree, but I also know I would freeze up and be terrible at this sort of thing, if the media were to choose to shove microphones in my face for some reason.
There are some who convert completely and then change their ways completely. But most of us are in a process of converting partially, reforming partially, converting some more, reforming some more, etc. You kind of have to plug away at the impossible-to-follow moralism while chipping away at your impossible-to-produce conversion, and hope for God's grace in both.
Two things, hes speaking off the cuff, but "I think" is often american for "this is happening" but in kind of a,softly spoken way at that's how I've taken it from him
I think that he is speaking Midwest style English. He clearly noted that Rome has already said no. He has noted that everyone is welcome to come and live according to Christian morals, and that there are other more important issues than sex. He is never going to support polarization in the Church. Just as in war, he supports negotiations to keep people in line with the Church rather than hitting them over the head with how wrong they are. But they are most definitely wrong. He knows the Church's doctrines aren't going to change on this issue because the family is a symbol of the Trinity and deliberately infertile relationships aren't such a symbol.
I find this a very interesting comment, because I immediately interpreted this as, "he's very clear that the Church's position on these topics is true and morally correct, but he doesn't want to come across as authoritarian to an audience that might otherwise be receptive to what he has to say." Kind of like, when someone you don't know well asks you (to defend) the Church's position on a difficult or emotional topic, and first you immediately pray to the Holy Spirit to inspire your words, and then you give an answer that that person is able to receive; then, later, once you've built more trust with that person, you're able to have more in-depth discussions on these difficult and emotional topics, because that person's more willing and able to receive the truth you have to preach. We absolutely have to share the truth (universal call to mission! not getting out of this one), but we have to share that Truth winsomely and in charity.
Which is to say, I agree with your impression, but I reached the exact opposite conclusion on what Leo's actually doing here.
Yes! Where is the confidence that grace is transformative and makes everything God desires for us-possible? Let’s never think about changing the Church’s teaching, but being changed ourselves. Cardinal Marx and his ilk want the Church to convert, rather than to call themselves and others to conversion.
Especially with other transcripts excluding the word "infamous", you have to wonder whether this was a misspoken word or a pretty funny joke about how the phrase has been received.
“I believe it is very important to understand that the unity or division of the Church should not revolve around sexual issues.”
It would be nice if there were no issues at all which threatened the unity of the Church Militant, however, in every age there are issues which do. In our age, it is ‘expressive individualism’ (call it what you will) which is typically reduced to matters of sex and so called ‘sexual identity’. This shouldn’t be surprising, as these urges are fundamental, powerful, and protean (this is to say that it's not just a North American and European issue, but simply takes different forms elsewhere, like monogamy/polygamy in sub-Saharan Africa). So… We must ask, which shark is closest to the barque, threatening both its integrity and occupants? Whichever shark that is, it’s necessary to shoot that one first. I think it’s wishful thinking to state that the shark which is closest isn’t actually maybe even a shark at all. This is how I read it anyway. He was, as has been noted, probably exhausted.
The most interesting thing to me about Leo's statement is that he frames it as an issue of receiving general blessings, like at the end of mass, that are meant for the congregation or large groups of people. His statement "receive the blessing." And, "“When a priest gives the blessing at the end of Mass, when the pope gives the blessing at the end of a great celebration like the one we had today, there are blessings for all people." This is not what Fiducia supplicans calls for. The document is intentionally ambiguous, but it is clear enough, based on the document itself and statements from the Cardinal Fernandez, that it is not referring simply to these kinds of general blessings, but rather extra blessings given to same-sex couples. What Pope Leo is describing is not as much as the German bishops are calling for, but less than what the document permits.
This reminds me of when Pope Francis was questioned on Fiducia supplicans in an interview, he repeatedly referred to the document as authorizing blessings of homosexual people, but again, that's not what the document says. It specifically refers to blessing homosexual *couples*. It seems that two Popes in a row can't quite get right what this document actually says. This by itself seems to me to be a very telling diagnosis of the merits of Fiducia supplicans, perhaps even more convincing than any serious Catholic theologian could provide.
The most interesting part about this to me is that he unequivocally says the Holy See does not agree with the formal blessing of couples in same-sex marriages or irregular unions. That gives rise to the obvious question of whether there will be any discipline to keep the German church in union with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, I am not confident of any forthcoming consequences.
John Paul II personally convened and oversaw a meeting in Rome with the Dutch bishops in 1980, where he pressed for unity and doctrinal clarity, and steered the bishops toward Vatican positions (celibacy, doctrine, authority, etc.). I can see Leo doing the same.
Unfortunately for Leo, generals can pick the battlefield, but they can't pick the battle.
Matters of sexual morality come to the forefront because even now, that is what the secular world is concerned with, and often attacking the Church over. It is a step up from his predecessor who blamed and scolded catholics for these issues being divisive, but we have to have an answer when confronted, and that includes on topics we may not think should be as important.
Yes, great point. Isn’t it also true that the teachings of the Church are clear? Are you saying some questions of sexual morality are still open ended?
If Cardinal Marx and others keep pushing on this, they will provide the pope with the perfect opportunity and necessity for issuing a “clarification” on FS. And well, we can see which way Pope Leo will take it, and they won’t like it. Their own actions undercut their ends.
Pathetic response period. I do not place my faith in men. This issue is not new…it’s just to sad that those who should be defending right from wrong have whiffed!
I think the only people who should not get any blessings are certain bishops like Cardinal Marx (Pope Leo XIV should retire him immediately or name a conservative coadjutor archbishop for him like Archbishop Ganswein). Like Caifas and the leadersip of the Sanhedrin self-righteously persuaded the people in Jerusalem and Pilate to condemn Jesus, it seems some bishops love blaspheming Jesus by persuading people to sin gravely, leading them to Hell. Pope Leo XIV, like Jesus, does not mind being with prostitutes and other sexual sinners, but he hopefully does mind hypocritical prelates who, like the Polish saying goes: "modli sie pod figura, a diabla ma za skora" (he prays before a figure, but has the devil under his skin).
I think it very confusing for the pope to say that the Holy See “doesn’t agree” with the German bishops. It is his job as universal pastor to PROHIBIT the German bishops or any of the Catholic hierarchy or faithful from contradicting the faith once delivered. As to being fixated on sexual sin, i offer this: “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God…The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself?… For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.”
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 13, 15-16, 18-20 . Our Catholic Bible is talking about eternal damnation& sinning against the Holy Spirit
“You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
our Holy Father talks UNITY at seemingly all costs but Amos 3:3 “How can two walk together unless they are agreed”? or “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? Therefore, “Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.””
He said he has already told the German bishops not to do this. They won't listen. He doesn't want to break up the Church but most of the Germans appear to want just that.
i cant find anywhere in public media where Leo, Francis or the Holy See has prohibited the Germans from this action. Francis/Leo afraid to split the Church but its a false unity. The Germans have already separated themselves from the Divine & Catholic Faith. Leo says he disagrees with the German Bishops. Leo shouldn’t say “i disagree with you”. That weakens the Papacy. Leo should say “I am ‘Peter’ and this is what I, the Church, Scripture & Tradition teaches.”
There have been many private consultations between the German bishops and the Vatican. Also, Fernandes's restatement of what Fiducia actually said was very clear that official blessings of irregular unions was banned and wrote out exactly what could actually be said and done in these situations with respect to a blessing. Since Pope Leo on this flight said Rome had already told them no, I should think that ends the question of what can be done.
"....we should seek to build our unity on Jesus Christ and on what Jesus Christ teaches.”
And when will this start under the Holy Father's Pontificate?
Immorality never becomes right, or the norm simply because an unidentified "Eastern Cardinal" doesn't like or approve of what another part of the world's culture believes and accepts. The goal of the Universal Church is, and always has been the salvation of souls through the worship and acceptance of Our Lord, Jesus. I fully accept the words of Our Lord when he told Peter about the "gates of hell" thing, but someone should have reminded Francis of it, and now Pope Leo, as well.
Too bad that Fiducia Supplicans means that every Pope from now until the return of the Lord will have to carefully dance in this way.
Well, if Fiducia Supplicans represented a flip from the DDF, once Fernandez is out, we could always see a flop!
Patience and trust in the Lord. I watched the video of His Holiness answering the question and in a clear and concise manner he said, essentially, what Francis permitted was the same as blessing everyone at the end of Mass or at the end of a Papal audience while making the clearest statement yet that the German bishops are not to introduce formalized ritualistic blessings for couples in "irregular situations" because the Holy See cannot permit it. I can see years from now either Leo or his successor, depending upon implementation of Fiducia Supplicans and/or attempts to abuse its limited instruction, issuing a motu proprio that says, essentially, since the promulgation of Fiducia Supplicans, elements within the Church have misunderstood it and have sought to ritualize blessings for homosexual couples, thereby necessitating a clarifying motu proprio to pretty much say what Leo said on the plane. That's sort of what Francis did when he superseded Summorum Pontificum regarding the Extraordinary Form; claimed data and feedback regarding implementation showed fragmentation and division in the Church that necessitated clarification. I did not share that view as a whole, but of course there are certain communities of traditionalists who really isolated themselves. So long as it concerns matters of discipline and practice (and not dogma), things can always be changed.
I can't help but notice what looks like a pattern of hedging in all of these statements:
- "to go beyond this today, I believe, could cause more disunity than unity"...but maybe one could go beyond this tomorrow, if and when it would not be so disunifying?
- "For now… I’m trying not to continue to polarize or promote polarization in the Church"...for now, but maybe later things will be different?
- "I think we have to change attitudes before we even think about changing what the Church says about any given question." But maybe after we change attitudes, then we can think about changing what the Church says?
- I find it highly unlikely, certainly in the near future, that the Church’s doctrine in terms of what the Church teaches about sexuality, what the Church teaches about marriage, [will change].” Not in the near future, but maybe in the mid-to-far future?
- "I think that the Church’s teaching will continue as it is". Think, but aren't sure?
Yes, troubling.
I am really happy to hear him straight up say there are more important issues than the gender and marriage ones that are so huge and sensitive in the US. But agree I have an eyebrow raised at some of these statements. I think (to borrow from him lol) the hedging seems to be a characteristic of his off the cuff speech and may not actually reflect what he thinks.
I kind of wonder if he is, being only a year into his ministry, still feeling his way around dealing with the press and trying not to create another wave of news that he sees as an energy sucking distraction. I also don’t like the hedging, but I suspect, as he matures in this office, statements will be delivered at least a touch more forcefully. Also, Theology of the Body teaches us that our sexuality is in fact a fantastically, inescapably grand issue, so to say it isn’t a big issue is a head scratcher.
I mean it’s both and. Your TOTB point is obviously dead on but also doesn’t it seem like all any first world catholic want to talk about is everything to do with sex, where as he just got done with all these local Churches in Africa and they have tons of different issues 🤷🏽♀️.
I mean I guess polygamy does come up places, but nobody is hedging on that one.
Um, I can't say I run into a lot of first world Catholics who only want to talk about things having to do with sex... certain first world non-Catholics, maybe.
To be fair, the last time I talked with a fellow Catholic, the topic came up, but that was because the question of what Albigensians believe came up, because we were talking about Dominicans and scholasticism and why on earth Aquinas was going through the proofs of God in the Summa when it was written for seminarians who presumably believe God exists. And good grief those heretics were messed up. But I don't think there's many who talk Catholicism mainly for the delight of discussing sexual ethics.
Problems with homosexuality, rape, fornication, etc. do come up in Africa, it's just not talked about so much, culturally, and deviancy is not considered to be a cause for celebration. You can avoid a lot of talking about sins when everyone agrees they are sins.
lol I’m sorry for imprecise speech - I don’t have these conversations in person either. It’s the combox, social media, legacy media headlines that go on and on, over and over on all topics sexuality. Right bc culturally we are being shouted at that These topics aren’t sins.
As we say to my kids, “asked and answered.”
But people won’t let it go (look at synodal way topics in Germany ). That’s what I meant, not that I discuss sex with every person I encounter lol.
Not a big issue, subject, reality, but, not a priority. He knows the issues are important. The JPII theology of the body theology and spirituality are a good but among the U.S. Catholic clerical and lay elites it did not leave room for many other important moral issues. Pope Leo is telling all of us that morality is predicated of all life from conception to natural death. Its simply a reminder in new American skins. He will and can only teach faithfulness to mater ecclesia.
I find it weird that Francis is always brought up as though he was the final authority on whatever topic. As you point out, less than 50 years ago we had JPII and Theology of the Body which is much deeper and broader than Fiducia Supplicans (I know FS is for a different purpose than TOB, but my point stands). I remember JD pointing out the apparent need of clerics to constantly reference Pope Francis and that seems to be ongoing even in this next pontificate, even though the Church has a lot more to say (on just about any subject) than simply what Francis said.
I noticed he's always pointing to conversion (or lackthereof) as the key issue here, especially in regards to the third quote you referenced. If there isn't genuine conversion in a person, then doctrine just becomes impossible-to-follow moralism. That's why some would want to change it, especially in regards to sexuality. He's going to the root of the disunity.
At the same rate, the "I think" kind of rhetoric might be a vestige of American parlance of people his age or region. Not sure, but I get the frustration.
I agree about the style of speaking. I do find it frustrating sometimes when I encounter it, but I would not take it as evidence of a particular take. He's very tired, speaking off the cuff, and hedging most likely as a way to be non confrontational, while still making an overall good point. Perhaps to his way of thinking, being more direct would turn more people off listening to the main idea. I don't know if I agree, but I also know I would freeze up and be terrible at this sort of thing, if the media were to choose to shove microphones in my face for some reason.
There are some who convert completely and then change their ways completely. But most of us are in a process of converting partially, reforming partially, converting some more, reforming some more, etc. You kind of have to plug away at the impossible-to-follow moralism while chipping away at your impossible-to-produce conversion, and hope for God's grace in both.
Do good, avoid evil, choose light, not darkness, life, not death, love, not hate, peace, not war, virtue, not vice, lets see, what else…..
That might be the definition of Pelagianism.
Good point. I find people’s opinions of what it might mean veeery interesting.
Two things, hes speaking off the cuff, but "I think" is often american for "this is happening" but in kind of a,softly spoken way at that's how I've taken it from him
I think that he is speaking Midwest style English. He clearly noted that Rome has already said no. He has noted that everyone is welcome to come and live according to Christian morals, and that there are other more important issues than sex. He is never going to support polarization in the Church. Just as in war, he supports negotiations to keep people in line with the Church rather than hitting them over the head with how wrong they are. But they are most definitely wrong. He knows the Church's doctrines aren't going to change on this issue because the family is a symbol of the Trinity and deliberately infertile relationships aren't such a symbol.
I find this a very interesting comment, because I immediately interpreted this as, "he's very clear that the Church's position on these topics is true and morally correct, but he doesn't want to come across as authoritarian to an audience that might otherwise be receptive to what he has to say." Kind of like, when someone you don't know well asks you (to defend) the Church's position on a difficult or emotional topic, and first you immediately pray to the Holy Spirit to inspire your words, and then you give an answer that that person is able to receive; then, later, once you've built more trust with that person, you're able to have more in-depth discussions on these difficult and emotional topics, because that person's more willing and able to receive the truth you have to preach. We absolutely have to share the truth (universal call to mission! not getting out of this one), but we have to share that Truth winsomely and in charity.
Which is to say, I agree with your impression, but I reached the exact opposite conclusion on what Leo's actually doing here.
Yes! Where is the confidence that grace is transformative and makes everything God desires for us-possible? Let’s never think about changing the Church’s teaching, but being changed ourselves. Cardinal Marx and his ilk want the Church to convert, rather than to call themselves and others to conversion.
The poor man looks exhausted. Maybe they should let him get a couple of hours sleep before running that particular gauntlet.
"Francis’s infamous, famous, well-known, expression, ‘tutti, tutti, tutti,’..."
Especially with other transcripts excluding the word "infamous", you have to wonder whether this was a misspoken word or a pretty funny joke about how the phrase has been received.
Don’t europeans think it’s funny because it sounds like the ice cream flavor “tutti frutti”? Maybe he’s referencing that?
Thank you for that. 🌹😂
So famous it's *in*-famous!
I heard it, it was quick, “infamous/famous,” and you are spot on….It was his way of noting the critics. He sat them right next to each other.
Leo would do well to memorize another infamous, famous, well-known Francis quote:
“No.”
“I believe it is very important to understand that the unity or division of the Church should not revolve around sexual issues.”
It would be nice if there were no issues at all which threatened the unity of the Church Militant, however, in every age there are issues which do. In our age, it is ‘expressive individualism’ (call it what you will) which is typically reduced to matters of sex and so called ‘sexual identity’. This shouldn’t be surprising, as these urges are fundamental, powerful, and protean (this is to say that it's not just a North American and European issue, but simply takes different forms elsewhere, like monogamy/polygamy in sub-Saharan Africa). So… We must ask, which shark is closest to the barque, threatening both its integrity and occupants? Whichever shark that is, it’s necessary to shoot that one first. I think it’s wishful thinking to state that the shark which is closest isn’t actually maybe even a shark at all. This is how I read it anyway. He was, as has been noted, probably exhausted.
The most interesting thing to me about Leo's statement is that he frames it as an issue of receiving general blessings, like at the end of mass, that are meant for the congregation or large groups of people. His statement "receive the blessing." And, "“When a priest gives the blessing at the end of Mass, when the pope gives the blessing at the end of a great celebration like the one we had today, there are blessings for all people." This is not what Fiducia supplicans calls for. The document is intentionally ambiguous, but it is clear enough, based on the document itself and statements from the Cardinal Fernandez, that it is not referring simply to these kinds of general blessings, but rather extra blessings given to same-sex couples. What Pope Leo is describing is not as much as the German bishops are calling for, but less than what the document permits.
This reminds me of when Pope Francis was questioned on Fiducia supplicans in an interview, he repeatedly referred to the document as authorizing blessings of homosexual people, but again, that's not what the document says. It specifically refers to blessing homosexual *couples*. It seems that two Popes in a row can't quite get right what this document actually says. This by itself seems to me to be a very telling diagnosis of the merits of Fiducia supplicans, perhaps even more convincing than any serious Catholic theologian could provide.
“What the document actually says.” This remains your valid interpretation. The Pope of all people has a right to his own interpretation as well.
The most interesting part about this to me is that he unequivocally says the Holy See does not agree with the formal blessing of couples in same-sex marriages or irregular unions. That gives rise to the obvious question of whether there will be any discipline to keep the German church in union with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, I am not confident of any forthcoming consequences.
John Paul II personally convened and oversaw a meeting in Rome with the Dutch bishops in 1980, where he pressed for unity and doctrinal clarity, and steered the bishops toward Vatican positions (celibacy, doctrine, authority, etc.). I can see Leo doing the same.
Unfortunately for Leo, generals can pick the battlefield, but they can't pick the battle.
Matters of sexual morality come to the forefront because even now, that is what the secular world is concerned with, and often attacking the Church over. It is a step up from his predecessor who blamed and scolded catholics for these issues being divisive, but we have to have an answer when confronted, and that includes on topics we may not think should be as important.
Yes, great point. Isn’t it also true that the teachings of the Church are clear? Are you saying some questions of sexual morality are still open ended?
If Cardinal Marx and others keep pushing on this, they will provide the pope with the perfect opportunity and necessity for issuing a “clarification” on FS. And well, we can see which way Pope Leo will take it, and they won’t like it. Their own actions undercut their ends.
Pathetic response period. I do not place my faith in men. This issue is not new…it’s just to sad that those who should be defending right from wrong have whiffed!
"The Holy See has made it clear..."
Not to the Germans they haven't.
I think the only people who should not get any blessings are certain bishops like Cardinal Marx (Pope Leo XIV should retire him immediately or name a conservative coadjutor archbishop for him like Archbishop Ganswein). Like Caifas and the leadersip of the Sanhedrin self-righteously persuaded the people in Jerusalem and Pilate to condemn Jesus, it seems some bishops love blaspheming Jesus by persuading people to sin gravely, leading them to Hell. Pope Leo XIV, like Jesus, does not mind being with prostitutes and other sexual sinners, but he hopefully does mind hypocritical prelates who, like the Polish saying goes: "modli sie pod figura, a diabla ma za skora" (he prays before a figure, but has the devil under his skin).
I think it very confusing for the pope to say that the Holy See “doesn’t agree” with the German bishops. It is his job as universal pastor to PROHIBIT the German bishops or any of the Catholic hierarchy or faithful from contradicting the faith once delivered. As to being fixated on sexual sin, i offer this: “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God…The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself?… For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.”
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 13, 15-16, 18-20 . Our Catholic Bible is talking about eternal damnation& sinning against the Holy Spirit
“You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Galatians 5:13, 16-17, 19-21
our Holy Father talks UNITY at seemingly all costs but Amos 3:3 “How can two walk together unless they are agreed”? or “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? Therefore, “Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.””
2 Corinthians 6:14-15, 17
He said he has already told the German bishops not to do this. They won't listen. He doesn't want to break up the Church but most of the Germans appear to want just that.
i cant find anywhere in public media where Leo, Francis or the Holy See has prohibited the Germans from this action. Francis/Leo afraid to split the Church but its a false unity. The Germans have already separated themselves from the Divine & Catholic Faith. Leo says he disagrees with the German Bishops. Leo shouldn’t say “i disagree with you”. That weakens the Papacy. Leo should say “I am ‘Peter’ and this is what I, the Church, Scripture & Tradition teaches.”
There have been many private consultations between the German bishops and the Vatican. Also, Fernandes's restatement of what Fiducia actually said was very clear that official blessings of irregular unions was banned and wrote out exactly what could actually be said and done in these situations with respect to a blessing. Since Pope Leo on this flight said Rome had already told them no, I should think that ends the question of what can be done.
"....we should seek to build our unity on Jesus Christ and on what Jesus Christ teaches.”
And when will this start under the Holy Father's Pontificate?
Immorality never becomes right, or the norm simply because an unidentified "Eastern Cardinal" doesn't like or approve of what another part of the world's culture believes and accepts. The goal of the Universal Church is, and always has been the salvation of souls through the worship and acceptance of Our Lord, Jesus. I fully accept the words of Our Lord when he told Peter about the "gates of hell" thing, but someone should have reminded Francis of it, and now Pope Leo, as well.