The big buzz in Catholic circles these days concerns the new DDF Declaration, Fiducia Supplicans, allowing for “the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples.”
Here, I will touch on those portions of the text that reveal its true intent. [HINT: It’s not what its authors are claiming.]
In the preface, Cardinal Tucho “Mouth Healer” Fernández, Prefect of the DDF, immediately makes clear that the text of the declaration “was submitted to the Holy Father [sic] for his review, and he approved it with his signature.”
He tells us that the document provides an “innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings … based on the pastoral vision of Pope Francis.” [NB: He readily admits that it’s an innovation, which for those with sensus Catholicus means a rupture with venerable Catholic tradition.]
Tucho went on to remind readers that “the Roman Curia is primarily an instrument at the service of the successor of Peter.”
The final paragraph of the declaration begins: “Taking the above points into account and following the authoritative teaching of Pope Francis…”
See what he’s doing there? He’s making it exceedingly plain that Fiducia Supplicans is to be understood as papal magisterium.
Even so, watch how many leading tradservative voices – raised by men who vehemently insist that Francis is the Holy Roman Pontiff – will treat it as if it is no more authoritative than a Note from the Pastor in a parish bulletin.
So, assuming the text comes to us from the one true Church as opposed to a gang of usurpers in possession of her buildings, how should the faithful receive it?
The decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless, normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See. (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma)
But… but… this isn’t normal! We must resist!
Shut up, already. The fence straddling days have passed. “Yea, but” is no longer tenable.
It’s high time for the captains of tradservative media, whose business model involves building a franchise on the dubious presumption that Jorge Bergoglio is the visible head of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, to either put up – that is, to accept with inner assent the bilge flowing out of conciliar Rome as if it is coming from the locus of supernatural authority on earth, or publicly acknowledge the increasingly undeniable truth that the conciliar church is a counterfeit church being led by an anti-pope.
Yes, the latter will cost them followers, clicks, and cash, but what they will save in the process is far more valuable.
I digress. Returning to the text…
Throughout the declaration, numerous references are made to “couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples.”
Modernists are masters of employing linguistic sleight of hand in order to manipulate attitudes and beliefs. In the present case, a deliberate albeit subtle assertion is being made, namely, that there is moral equivalence between a man and a woman who are either cohabitating, or in a so-called “second (or third) marriage,” and persons in a homosexual union.
I trust that it isn’t necessary (at least for regular readers of this space) to elaborate as to why this is a diabolical lie, one that homo-activists have been Hell bent on propagating for years on end, so we’ll just leave it at that.
This having been said, let’s be perfectly clear about the subject of this declaration: Though it may also apply to men and women in so-called “irregular situations,” it is laser focused on homo-deviants.
Another clever act of deception woven throughout the text concerns its multiple cautions against blessings that “could create confusion between what constitutes marriage.”
Although some persons may consider these cautionary words laudable, don’t be fooled, it’s a straw man argument. The matter at hand carries nearly no potential risk of creating confusion between marriage and whatever sex pact two homo-deviants may have formed. No one in their right mind (and even most persons not in their right mind) would ever witness a homo couple receiving a blessing, as despicable as that is, and walk away convinced that the Church has joined two sodomites in holy matrimony.
The authors (and signatories) of the text raise this disingenuous warning only to distract from the declaration’s true intent, which we will identify shortly.
So, what is the primary risk involved in blessing homo couples (perhaps better referred to as coupled homos)?
Before we answer this question, it will be useful to address yet another, related, act of deception that is woven into the text.
The declaration describes the homo couple/would-be recipients of blessing as follows:
– One who asks for a blessing shows himself to be in need of God’s saving presence in his life.
– One who asks for a blessing from the Church recognizes the latter as a sacrament of the salvation that God offers.
– To seek a blessing in the Church is to acknowledge that the life of the Church springs from the womb of God’s mercy and helps us to move forward, to live better, and to respond to the Lord’s will.
– Quoting Francis: “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.”
– People who come spontaneously to ask for a blessing show by this request their sincere openness to transcendence, the confidence of their hearts that they do not trust in their own strength alone, their need for God, and their desire to break out of the narrow confines of this world, enclosed in its limitations.
NB: “…spontaneously to ask for a blessing…” This notion is repeated elsewhere in the text and it’s a steaming load of garbage.
Did the homo couple receiving a blessing from James Martin in the photo above just happen to ask for a blessing on the spur of the moment? No, of course not.
There can be no doubt that Jimmy and the fellas had a heads-up that the text was coming (no puns intended). He obviously even alerted the media so they could be on hand to record the momentous occasion! According to the NY Times, shortly after the document dropped, the couple made a special trip via subway to Martin’s “living room on Manhattan’s West Side.”
It was all very spontaneous, you see.
Rest assured, in the weeks and months ahead, the overwhelming number of conciliar church blessings on same sex couples will likewise be well orchestrated affairs, and these occasions will be used as tools for homo-propaganda just like the photo in the NY Times. In fact, gay blessing photography is likely to become a thriving little niche business in various enclaves.
That said, take another look at that laundry list of assumptions being put forth about a sodomite couple’s beliefs and their motivation for seeking a blessing from the Church.
Is it possible that this describes perhaps some of those who might seek such a blessing? Sure, it may be possible on occasion. Is it likely? Hell no.
Whatever the case may be, despite the fact that the declaration makes a series of bold assumptions about a same sex couple’s beliefs and motivations, even going so far as to present those assumptions as an argument in favor of blessing them, the text specifically discourages priests from examining the couple’s intent.
Thus, when people ask for a blessing, an exhaustive moral analysis should not be placed as a precondition for conferring it. For, those seeking a blessing should not be required to have prior moral perfection.
Firstly, note that we have yet another straw man argument: No serious Catholic has ever suggested that moral perfection is required (or even possible) before one can receive a blessing from the Church.
Secondly, and conceding for the sake of argument that the Church can bless same sex couples, it must be said that – for the good of the persons involved – a conversation about their intention is not only warranted, it is absolutely necessary lest the couple come away convinced that the Church approves of their disordered relationship.
But that, my friends, is the entire point, i.e., it’s not a “risk” at all, it’s the goal.
I repeat: The true intent of Fiducia Supplicans, despite its hollow objections to the contrary, is to legitimize gay unions and the homo-sex that defines them. Doing so is utterly unavoidable, it goes hand in glove with the blessing of same-sex couples, as I will explain momentarily.
Moreover, we can be absolutely certain that the overwhelming majority of homo couples that come forward to seek the blessing of the Church (in this case, the conciliar church, to be clear) will do so as a means of obtaining what they – the couple – can henceforth claim to be (and not without reason) the Church’s sanction of their relationship.
It has been clear for many years now that the conciliar church at the very least passively tolerates, if not flat out encourages, same sex relationships, even as it “officially” states otherwise. After all, the organization is infested with ordained homo-deviants, including a large segment of its leadership, a good number of whom one can name with a high degree of certainty.
No, not all homo-clerics are actively engaged in gay sex themselves. Many appear content simply to live out their disordered desires vicariously through the activities of the non-celibate homos that they labor to confirm and encourage. Now, they have a shiny new arrow in their quiver.
According to the guidelines set forth in the declaration, the form of blessing for same sex couples “should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage.”
There’s that straw man again. Though some naïve persons will certainly applaud this, those with eyes opened wide will know better. What failing to fix the ritual accomplishes and truly intends is to grant license to homosexualist clergy to craft their own blessings, however they may see fit. What could possibly go wrong?
Just you wait and see as gay couples are invited to write their own blessings, or at the very least, are allowed to have input regarding its content. This, of course, is a crafty way of mimicking the writing of one’s own wedding vows, a common marital practice among heretics.
Would this practice violate the spirit of some of the cautionary words found in Fiducia Supplicans? Yes. Is it specifically forbidden? No. Is it very much in line with the proscription against a fixed form? Certainly. Lastly, is it at all likely that a priest who is inclined to bless a same sex couple would object to them writing their own blessing? Hell no!
Apart from this, can there be any doubt that there’s a gaggle of effeminate priests just dying to lay hands on a homo couple so they can gush, in the form of a faux blessing, about how pleasing their committed love is in the eyes of Almighty God (and worse)?
Another practice that I suspect will become commonplace will be the presence of children at these blessings when, God forbid, the couple is comprised of two mommies or daddies.
At this, let us consider the words chosen by James Martin for the blessing he imparted before the NY Times photographer who just happened to be on sight. Martin shared the following on Facebook:
Did Jimmy choose these biblical and therefore unassailable words as an exercise in prudence, or was there something more nefarious at play?
Only he knows for certain, but my suspicion is that the clever bastard chose to recite the so-called Aaronic Blessing – the inspired Word of God as recorded in Sacred Scripture – as a way of conveying the lie that Almighty God Himself is down with the program.
Moving on, the text poses a rhetorical question that begins: “How often, through a pastor’s simple blessing, which does not claim to sanction or legitimize anything…”
The suggestion here is obvious; it’s deliberate; it’s subtle, and it’s a lie, namely, that a pastor’s simple [that is, non-liturgical] blessing never legitimizes anything.
Sure, if a heroin addict requests and receives a priestly blessing, no one would ever assume that the Church is thereby sanctioning drug abuse. This dynamic does not always hold true, however, such as when a blessing is imparted upon a communion of persons of whatever number, be it two or two thousand.
In cases such as these, the important component that makes the Church’s blessing possible, or not, concerns the nature of said communion as a communion, its ethos, its unifying principle, its defining characteristics, etc.
NB: If you take nothing else away from this essay, let it be this explanation as to why the blessing of same-sex couples necessarily communicates the sanction of their union.
For example, at a gathering of the Catholic Medical Association – the members of which are defined by, and united in, a shared commitment to provide ethical healthcare in accordance with Catholic moral principles – a priest, if asked, would not hesitate to impart the Church’s blessing.
That same priest (unless he is a fraud) would refuse to do likewise at a meeting of Planned Parenthood, the members of which are collectively defined by, and united in, a shared commitment to exterminate unwanted children.
The reason for the priest’s disparate responses should be obvious to all:
Imparting a blessing on a communion of persons (again, be it two or two thousand), who are collectively defined by that which unites them, goes beyond the individual persons involved, rather, it necessarily implies the Church’s legitimization of the collective and its unifying ethos. When that ethos is clearly sinful – or worse, intrinsically evil – the Church must withhold her blessing.
So, what exactly is “a same sex couple,” a phrase that appears numerous times in the text?
It is a communion of persons who are (by their own choice) defined by that which unites them. As such, it simply is not possible to bless two people who identify as a unit known as a “same sex couple” without legitimizing their unifying ethos, namely, homosexual activity, a sin that “cries to Heaven for vengeance”.
NB: To be certain, I am not pointing out an oversight on the part of the authors of the text, but rather their true intention.
Indeed, if the actual intent is to lead the persons involved to a life of holiness, it must be said that a blessing has always been, and remains, readily available to these persons as individuals.
More could be said, but I’ll wrap it up with this.
The declaration ends:
Thus, beyond the guidance provided above, no further responses should be expected about possible ways to regulate details or practicalities regarding blessings of this type.
In other words, let the circus begin.
