By: Diane Montagna
As a strong and steady backlash to the Vatican’s declaration on blessings for same-sex couples continues to flow in from Catholic Bishops around the world, Bishop Athanasius Schneider is referring to the document as “a mockery of the natural and revealed law of God.”
In his first print interview since the December 18 release of Fiducia supplicans by the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, the auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan contends the declaration “clearly, albeit cunningly, undermines the natural and revealed law of God regarding marriage and the meaning and exercise of human sexuality” and therefore “cannot be the expression of the Church’s authentic Magisterium and forfeits any binding authority.”
His Excellency also argues that the notion that “nothing has changed” with the new declaration, or that it only permits the blessing of individuals in irregular situations, and not the blessing of the irregular (or sinful) situation itself, is “pure sophistry, a lack of intellectual honesty, or ignorance.”
“As anyone paying attention to the situation can see, the debate has only begun,” Bishop Schneider contends. “But perhaps creating a state of permanent debate, generalized uncertainty, and doctrinal and practical anarchy, was precisely its aim.”
In this exclusive interview, Bishop Schneider discusses how diocesan bishops ought best to respond, what priests can do if asked for a “blessing” from a same-sex couple, and how parents can face difficulties involving their son or daughter with supernatural faith.
He also discusses how the College of Cardinals should respond, what effect the release of Fiducia supplicans might have on the next conclave, and the declaration’s curious assertion that “no further responses should be expected about possible ways to regulate details or practicalities regarding blessings of this type.”
“As anyone paying attention to the situation can see, the debate has only begun,” Bishop Schneider contends. “But perhaps creating a state of permanent debate, generalized uncertainty, and doctrinal and practical anarchy, was precisely its aim.”
Here is our interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
Diane Montagna (DM): Your Excellency, what was your initial impression of Fiducia Supplicans: On the pastoral meaning of blessings, issued on December 18 by the prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Manuel Fernández, and approved by Pope Francis?
Athanasius Schneider (AS): This document and its impudent use of pious words struck me as an artifice of Pharisaism and a mockery of the natural and revealed law of God. In applying Fiducia supplicans, St John the Baptist could have imparted a “spontaneous” and “pastoral blessing” to the irregular union of Herod and Herodias.
This document clearly, albeit cunningly, undermines the natural and revealed law of God regarding marriage and the meaning and exercise of human sexuality. Therefore, it cannot be the expression of the Church’s authentic Magisterium and forfeits any binding authority.
(DM): As Vatican News noted in its initial report, this is the first time the Congregation (now Dicastery) for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued a Declaration since then-CDF prefect Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger issued Dominus Iesus. What weight or authority does such a document have?
(AS): This document clearly, albeit cunningly, undermines the natural and revealed law of God regarding marriage and the meaning and exercise of human sexuality. Therefore, it cannot be the expression of the Church’s authentic Magisterium and forfeits any binding authority. For the authentic Magisterium “is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully” (Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, 10).
(DM): Is it true, as some have suggested, that Fiducia supplicans only allows the blessing of individuals in irregular situations, and not the blessing of the irregular situation itself, and that, in effect, “nothing has changed”?
(AS): This is pure sophistry, a lack of intellectual honesty, or ignorance. The document’s aim, as explicitly stated at the beginning, is to allow “the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples”. There is no need to issue a special magisterial document to bless an individual who truly repents of his or her adulterous infidelity (irregular situation) or homosexual lifestyle.
Would the Church issue a declaration permitting priests to publicly bless organized crime syndicates, prescinding from their criminal activities, to enhance “all that is true, good, and humanly valid” in the members’ lives? Fiducia supplicans is a great deception and goes against basic logic. One can aptly apply to its assertions the words which St. Athanasius used to describe the Semi-Arian bishops of his time: they “eternally wrap themselves in ambiguities and deceitful interpretations” (Ep. ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyae).
(DM): How do you believe diocesan bishops should respond to Fiducia supplicans?
(AS): True Catholic bishops can only respond in one way: by determinedly rejecting the declaration, as it permits priests to perform an intrinsically immoral act by invoking God’s holy name — through a blessing — upon an objectively sinful situation that is known to the public. The swift response of bishops, who have prohibited their priests from blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples (e.g. the Archbishop of Saint Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan, the Head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Bishops’ Conferences of Poland, Malawi, Zambia Ghana, Cameroon, and Zimbabwe) has been a source of great consolation and encouragement to many priests and Catholic faithful, as is the letter that the Cardinal President of the Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM) sent to presidents of all local bishops’ conferences saying the “ambiguity of this declaration…lends itself to many interpretations and manipulations.”
A priest must be ready to lose everything rather than perform an act that offends God, such as blessing a couple in an objectively sinful union.
I regard the statement of the Bishops of Cameroon, which rejects Fiducia supplicans and “formally prohibits” all blessings of same-sex couples in their dioceses, as among the finest statements made thus far.
Every bishop today should keep in mind the words of St. Gregory of Nazianzen, who also lived in a time of almost worldwide doctrinal confusion in the Church: “There is nothing to fear so much as fearing anything more than God and therefore committing betrayal in the service of the truth.” (Or. 6,20) and “We do not keep peace at the expense of truth, making concessions to gain a reputation for tolerance” (Or. 42,13).
(DM): What should a priest do if a same-sex couple in his parish, or in some other context, requests a “blessing”, and what would be a suitable response?
(AS): If a priest were asked for a “blessing” by a same-sex couple, he should gently and clearly explain to them why he cannot do it and admonish them with charity to change their lifestyle and end the sinful union, which offends God’s order of creation, is a cause of public scandal, promotes the godless gender ideology, and puts them in the near and constant occasion of sin. He could offer to meet with each of them separately, and during this meeting he could certainly bless the person, provided he or she is willing to seriously undertake a path of conversion. He might also remind them of these words of Our Lord: “What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?” (Mt. 16:26).
(DM): What if a bishop were to demand that priests in his diocese perform such a “blessing”?
(AS): On one occasion, St Hilary of Poitiers, who lived at a time of great upheaval and confusion in the Church, spoke these inspiring words: “May I always be an exile, if only the truth begins to be preached again!” (De syn., 78). A priest can never bless a same-sex couple; this is against the divine law, and he must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29) — in this case, even the Pope or his Bishop. A priest must be ready to lose everything rather than perform an act that offends God, such as blessing a couple in an objectively sinful union.
It is encouraging to see that groups of priests, as e.g. the British Confraternity of Catholic Clergy or the US Provincial Superior of the Marian Fathers of the Immaculate Conception, have publicly responded to the declaration saying that such “blessings” would inevitably lead to scandal and are “pastorally and practically inadmissible.”
Fiducia supplicans is a façade of sophistry, employs deceptive language, and provides considerable space for multiple interpretations and applications.
(DM): What should parents do if their son or daughter were to ask them to be present at a “blessing” with their “partner” or threaten to end any relationship with them if they do not accept the “blessing”?
(AS): It is never morally licit to take part in an objectively evil action. Even if the son or daughter were to threaten to cut off all contact with the parents, they cannot yield, but should remember the words of Christ: “Whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Mt. 10:37).
(DM): Section III of the Fiducia supplicans cites Amoris Laetitia n. 304, which laid the foundation for AL 305, containing the controversial footnote 351 to open the door to Holy Communion for divorced Catholics in second “irregular” unions. What do you see as the relationship between this declaration and Amoris Laetitia? Is it simply the natural consequence of it?
(AS): Yes, it is the natural consequence of the principle of moral relativism laid down in Amoris Laetitia under the guise of “discernment”. Amoris Laetitia, n. 304 wrongly reduces the ever-valid laws of God (given through the natural law and Divine Revelation) to mere rules and norms, like changeable human laws or “ideals”. By portraying a divine commandment, e.g. the Sixth Commandment, as an “ideal”, Amoris Laetitia abolishes de facto the absolute validity of God’s commandments. Amoris Laetitia may cite St. Thomas Aquinas, but it does so out of context and in a manner that contradicts his teaching on the absolute validity of the Sixth Commandment.
(DM): Fiducia supplicans (citing Amoris Laetitia n. 304) concludes by stating: “What has been said in this Declaration regarding the blessings of same-sex couples is sufficient to guide the prudent and fatherly discernment of ordained ministers in this regard. 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.” Surely, Pope Francis and the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith cannot imagine there won’t be further debate—and pushback. What do you make of this?
(AS): Fiducia supplicans is a façade of sophistry, employs deceptive language, and provides considerable space for multiple interpretations and applications. As anyone paying attention to the situation can see, the debate has only begun. But perhaps creating a state of permanent debate, generalized uncertainty, and doctrinal and practical anarchy, was precisely its aim. St Gregory of Nazianzen’s description of the style and manner of many bishops of his day could aptly be applied here: “They are ambiguous in their faith, sticking to the age rather than the laws of God, swaying back and forth in their speech like ebb and flow” (Carm. 2, 12).
(DM): What effect do you believe this declaration is going to have on the Church and society more broadly?
(AS): The doctrinal and moral confusion and even anarchy that has reigned in society since the French Revolution, has now penetrated the life of the Church. Influential churchmen today are making every effort to adapt the doctrine and practice of the Church to the spirit of the age and whims of the powerful political elite. These words of St Gregory of Nazianzus are remarkably timely: “We see the sweet, beautiful source of our ancient faith unfortunately clouded by salty affluents, because there came into the Church people of wavering faith who think in a way that suits the powerful in the world” (Carm. 2, 11).
The Pope’s public approval of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples causes grave harm to the Church, and to the spiritual good and eternal salvation of souls. Accordingly, the Cardinals are obliged (also for the salvation of Pope Francis’ soul), to admonish him fraternally to rescind Fiducia supplicans.
(DM): What action, if any, do you suggest the Cardinals take in response to the Declaration?
(AS): The principal obligation of the College of the Cardinals is to advise the Roman Pontiff. The Pope’s public approval of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples causes grave harm to the Church, and to the spiritual good and eternal salvation of souls. Accordingly, the Cardinals are obliged (also for the salvation of Pope Francis’ soul), to admonish him fraternally to rescind Fiducia supplicans. Such an admonition should first be made privately, and if unsuccessful, should be made publicly and without delay. The Cardinals should have no fear in doing so but should instead fear neglecting to do so. In the meantime, the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, ought to be commended for his clear response, on December 21, 2023, to Fiducia supplicans, in which he described the blessing of couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples as an “sacrilegious and blasphemous act.”
(DM): What effect do you believe this declaration might have on the next conclave?
(AS): Considering that Pope Francis has in practice started a process of abolishing the Sixth Commandment of God by means of a deeply cunning document disguised in pious words, a considerable number of the Cardinals, who still preserve a basic sense of supernatural faith in God’s Revelation and the perennial validity of His Commandments, would in the next conclave very likely avoid electing a Pope who, as cardinal, in some way supported the LGBT agenda.
(DM): How would you respond to Catholic clergy and faithful who say they don’t want to be in communion with a Pope who would approve such a document?
(AS): The Pope remains in his office, even if he permits or affirms things which harm the Faith or are ambiguous or erroneous. Even if a pope were to pronounce heresy in his daily magisterium, i.e. outside of ex-cathedra pronouncements, and outside a formal definitive teaching, he would not lose the papacy. There have been rare cases in the Church’s history when popes have done this (e.g., Pope Honorius I and Pope John XXII) and they did not lose their office. Nor was their pontificate declared invalid during their lifetime or after their death. The Church will remain always in the almighty hands of Christ, who will not permit that the gates of hell prevail against Her, for He has founded His Church upon the rock of Peter. The Church, also in this respect, is divine: that she can endure such Popes.
(DM): Your Excellency, is there anything you wish to add?
(AS): God permits these times of great crisis and confusion to purify our faith and our unshakeable hope in Him. In such times, we should avoid overly human solutions, which are often prompted by anger and frustration. We should resist the temptation to adopt the attitude: “Now we will take the situation into our own hands and resolve the problem of this pontificate ourselves”. Such attitudes are worldly and lack a supernatural perspective. We should let ourselves be guided by the words and example of the great Fathers of the Church who, like us, lived in troubled times. May the following words of St Hilary bring us comfort: “In the fourth watch of the night the Lord will come, and he will find the Church exhausted and buffeted about by the spirit of Antichrist and by all the world’s troubles. But the good Lord will immediately speak to them, drive away their fear, and say, ‘It is I,’ banishing their fear of a certain shipwreck with faith at his coming” (In Math. 14, 14).
No comments:
Post a Comment