I was naive enough to hope that the Vatican had finished inflicting its yearly quota of modernist damage via Pope Francis’ pet Synod on Sin-odality accompanied by the brutish cancellations of Bishop Joseph Strickland and Raymond Cardinal Burke. It appears I was either too hasty or perhaps overly optimistic. As a parting Christmas sock filled with coal delivered to the entire Catholic world, Jorge Bergoglio’s doctrinal strong man, Victor Cardinal Fernandez, released a new Declaration, Fiducia supplicans, one week to the day before the solemn celebration of Christ’s birth. This latest Francis bombshell, released with his full approbation, appears designed not so much to clarify pastoral questions regarding the dispensation of blessings as to intentionally create confusion,chaos, and agitate controversy. Such divisive aims were certainly accomplished cum laude based on the immediate and wildly divergent responses, both pro and con, from various bishops around the world.

These days, the Vatican routinely launders heresy the way organized crime launders money (although the Holy See has engaged in its fair share of that as well) by burying its poison in fine sounding phrases. One example could be where the new document quotes Francis directly, “We are more important to God than all the sins we can commit because he is father, he is mother, he is pure love…(par. 27) Wait a minute, did Bergoglio just go radical feminist and call God our mother or is this just another of his patented shock value statements? In the Declaration, Cardinal Fernandez employs a bucket full of verbose linguistic sophistry to hide and obfuscate his underlying intentions, which seems to be clearing a pathway for persons in irregular marriages and homosexual unions to have those unions somehow recognized, whether in an official or unofficial capacity, by the Church. After all his boss, Jorge Bergoglio, has made no secret of his view that same-sex couples are entitled to civil recognition, and with the latest Declaration he seems to be laying the groundwork to impose some kind of “quasi-legitimate” status on same-sex unions within the Church itself.

As is always the case, the Ecclesial progressive advance guard resorts to pious verbosity in such documents as cover for the real hidden meaning and agenda. So it is not surprising for the Declaration to start out by clearly laying out the Church’s constant position regarding persons involved in irregular liaisons. “The Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex. (par. 5) Of course, once the Church’s official position is laid out and affirmed we then get to the “on the other hand” side of the argument. The Declaration initially states that Church blessings given by a priest are in fact sacramentals. “Blessings are among the most widespread and evolving sacramentals” (par. 8) It is then stated, rightly, that a priest may always bless a person. Nonetheless he cannot bless a sinful action or situation, for instance a woman who wants a blessing before going in for an abortion, because that would be a sacrilegious blessing. Yet as we read further down in the text the same Declaration suddenly doubles back on this basic principle stating, “With the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex… who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit.” (par. 31)

So whereas paragraph 5 stated that one cannot impart blessings on unions of the same sex, (i.e., blessing a couple v. a blessing for an individual), paragraph 31 reverses the norm by admitting the possibility of blessing couples of the same sex, a term synonymous with unions of the same sex, and which reveals a patent contradiction within the Declaration. The beauty of this ambiguous style of legal jargon polemic is that everyone can then read into the document whatever he wants to find. Note further that the Declaration intimates that there arises out of an objectively grave and sinful relationship something that is “true, good, and humanly valid.” This seems dangerously close to Luther’s heresy of “sin and sin boldly” in order to activate God’s grace. Nowhere is anything said about the need for repentance, a firm purpose of amendment, nor is there any directive to ” avoid this sin” as Christ himself commanded. Scripture tells us to warn the sinner lest he perish, but this document is all about celebrating sinful relationships (but in a quiet, discreet, ‘non-liturgical’ way urges the document) so that persons in these unions may be “enriched, healed, and elevated.” No apparent downside there!

The Declaration also tries to make a fine distinction between “loving and committed” relationships that it assumes are somehow superior to and more valid than supposedly unloving and non-committal relationships. The subtle implication is that some undetermined level of “commitment” qualifies such relationships for a different kind of consideration by the Church. Just where that nebulous boundary lies is anybody’s guess, of course. We are now flirting with the heresy of Proportionalism, the twin brother of Relativism. Even so, to be “loving and committed” in acts of grave sin is perhaps more dangerous than to be non-loving and uncommitted, because for the former the sin is more easily justified and dismissed in the minds of the participants. And to then bless a couple engaged in such a sinful relationship only further validates the state of habitual sin in those same confused minds, not to mention in the minds of other family members and friends.

Ultimately such a tainted blessing is not an act of charity but of deception. As the British Msgr. Michael Nazir-Ali, a former Anglican bishop and Catholic convert rightly noted, “Blessings can be for individuals, families, or groups. This is not the same as blessing relationships which the Church teaches are outside the will of God for humanity.” Just as in the case of a valid marriage, blessing the couple as a couple means to bless their entire mutual relationship. You can’t simply separate the two realities.

In a December 19 statement, the Ukrainian Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops noted in this Declaration, “a danger in ambiguous wording that causes divergent interpretations among the faithful. What we missed 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 endorsement.” There can be little doubt that this new Declaration will cause not only confusion but further scandalize those who may be ignorant of the Church’s constant teaching. It also creates a serious moral hazard for the clergy who will then be pressured to comply with the demands made by a poorly formed laity. Good priests will find themselves under the gun if they refuse such ‘blessings.’

After all the verbal gymnastics and ambiguities embedded within, the Declaration then retreats into a disingenuous disclaimer, enabling the Vatican to literally washes its hands of any negative consequences which may arise from its application. “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.” (par.41) By throwing open the determination of and responsibility for dispensing such blessings to individual clerics, Rome has basically cut the ground out from under the feet of her priests. This means that In countries like Canada, a priest could be prosecuted for a “hate crime” for refusing to bless a same-sex couple. Are we to believe that the Prefect of the CDDF is really so politically inept as not to realize such risks, or is he just being sneaky by forcing the issue into the forefront, hoping to gain traction before next year’s final session of the Synod on Sin-odality?

Francis’ self-proclaimed “revolution in the Church” seems to be following the Communist playbook in every respect. How much more modernist papal duplicity are faithful Catholics to be subjected, yes, the same people Francis routinely derides as rigid, backward, and judgmental? We know his so-called “Church of Inclusion” (which ironically excludes traditionalists) is undoubtedly in a state of grave crisis when some Protestant pastors are more willing to articulate Catholic doctrines than many bishops and Vatican officials. If this heteropraxis tainted Declaration is Bergoglo’s idea of a Christmas gift to the Church at the Advent of a new liturgical year, 2024 could be a very rough ride indeed for faithful bishops, priests, and Catholics alike.

At such moments it behooves us all to turn more fervently to prayer, and so I end with a very pertinent prayer which concludes the Litany for the Church in Our Time. It goes as follows: Jesus our Lord and God, in these dark hours when Thy Mystical Body is undergoing its own crucifixion, and when it would almost seem to be abandoned by God the Father, have mercy we beg Thee on Thy suffering Church. Send down upon us the Divine Consoler, to enlighten our minds and strengthen our wills.

Thou, O Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived, Who has promised to be with Thy Church until the end of time, grant us a mighty faith that we may not falter; help us to do Thy Holy Will at all times, especially during these hours of grief and uncertainty. May Thy Most Sacred Heart and the Immaculate and Sorrowful Heart of Thy Holy Mother be our sure refuge in time and eternity. Amen

A blessed Christmas season to you all!

Francis J. Pierson + a.m.d.g