Recognize and Resist is Real: The First Anniversary of the Historic Backlash to Fiducia Supplicans

Just one of the horrors that "Heal Me With Your Mouth" Fernández has unleashed on the Church with Francis's full approval. How long, O Lord, how long?

From Rorate Cæli

By Serre Verweij

The Orthodox Resurgence

 by Serre Verweij

for Rorate Caeli

A year ago, Victor Manuel Fernandez came out with a press release that was meant to clarify Fiducia Supplicans (or to placate its numerous critics). Fiducia Supplicans had managed to be the most controversial Vatican document since Humanae Vitae, 55 years earlier. In fact, it was more controversial. The alleged clarification ended up ‘de facto’ annulling many key parts of Fiducia Supplicans itself. Now, a year later, the document has become largely a dead letter. What exactly happened?

A clarification, in fact a retraction

The press release on January 4 2024, served as an obvious form of damage control. It did not just differ from Fiducia Supplicans in terms of its tone or emphasis, but it also outright contradicted its actual content at various points. 

Examples include: 

• *Its very existence (Fiducia Supplicans made clear that it would be the final response to questions regarding blessings for same sex couples. Yet, this press release followed less than three weeks later).
• *It allowed bishops to provide restricting guidelines for the document’s interpretation, contrary to the text of the document itself, that explicitly forbade both bishops’ conferences and individual bishops to provide clear guidelines. 
• *It affirmed FS as consistent with a 2021 Responsum by the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, that explicitly ruled out any blessing of homosexual unions.

It was the last point that completely gutted revolutionary potential of Fiducia Supplicans, less than a month after it was published. Fiducia Supplicans itself has been vague precisely on that issue. It spoke of blessings for same sex ‘couples’ and was ambiguous on whether this involved blessing the unions/relationships of such couples.

After the press release Pope Francis repeated several times that homosexual people could be blessed, but not their unions or activist groups, in one interview even describing the blessing of gay unions as contrary to natural law. Supportive declarations by liberal bishops quickly dried up and even Father James Martin removed a post that supported blessing gay unions and replaced it with a post about blessing couples.

Now the document has largely become an embarrassing chapter in the pontificate of Pope Francis. A document that turned many bishops and cardinals against him, while overshadowing his multiyear Synod on Synodality and the final days of his pontificate. To properly understand this political blunder, it is important to know background and context.

The prelude to Fiducia Supplicans 

Moderate progressives attacked the Responsum, largely by not denying its reassertion of the Church’s teachings on marriage, or its attempt to avoid confusion on this issue, but by rejecting its complete prohibition of any blessing of homosexual relationships, since they are sinful sexual relationships. It was this element that progressives hoped above all to see abandoned. 

Fernandez suggested he’d be open to this, as he only stood by the traditional definition of marriage, while refusing to fully reaffirm the Responsum in an interview with InfoVaticana, shortly after his appointment as the new prefect for the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith was announced. Following that, Pope Francis (possibly ghostwritten by Fernandez) actually provided a response to new dubia by orthodox cardinals, in which he refused to categorically rule out blessing of same sex unions, as long as these weren’t equated with marriage. There appeared to be an opening. Then, shortly after the synod, the bishops of the world were blind-sighted by the sudden release of Fiducia Supplicans, without any synodal basis, with the synod in fact still ongoing.

The dissidents pushed for change during the first session of the Synod on Synodality in October 2023, but the majority of bishops stood firmly for the Church’s sexual ethics. 

The dissenting viewpoints can be roughly divided into five positions, ranging from radically heretical to doctrinally ambiguous and pastorally irresponsible:

1. Homosexual relationships are normal and should receive a form of recognition, hopefully with gay marriage getting recognized eventually. Gay adoption is normal, too. This is the stance taken by the most radically liberal Protestant churches in recent years. A perspective that few bishops currently profess openly, with bishop Bonny from Antwerpen in Belgium being a rare, notorious proponent. 

2. The Church’s definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman is correct and should remain clear (at least officially for now), but homosexual relationships and other extramarital relationships, are (a lesser) good, too. They should receive some form of recognition and the Church’s teachings on sex outside of marriage is either outdated and wrong, or idealistic and worth ignoring. This is the attempted compromise pushed within Anglicanism, that resulted in schism, as well as the stance taken by Germany’s Synodal Path and the more liberal bishops in Austria and Switzerland.

3. Homosexual relationships do contain sinful elements (illicit sexual contact), but (supposedly) ‘stable’, ‘loving’ and ‘committed’ relationships have good elements, too. The Church should focus more on this and less on the sinful aspects. As a result either:

3a. The union can be blessed.

3b. The positive aspects of the union can be blessed (in a way that to most people it looks like blessing the unions).

This is the stance taken by Cardinal Schönborn in recent years, as well as by Scicluna from Malta and Archbishop Hervé Giraud of Sens-Auxerre in France.

4. Homosexual unions being wrong (or right) is irrelevant, as a blessing imparts the good of God even on sin and therefore does not affirm sin, while blessing it. This (or something along these lines given the ambiguity) was the odd position taken by Philippe Bordeyne, President of the John Paul II Pontifical Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences. 

5. Blessings for everyone (except maybe ‘awful’ reactionaries), as they show the ‘motherly face of the Church’. Blessings are important, even if they cause doctrinal confusion, because being pastoral is essential and so is blessing individuals or larger groups of people in whatever situation. This is the liberal Latin American tradition.

Fiducia Supplicans, as the work of Fernandez, ended up being largely based on position 5, but makes allusions to position 4 and can be (and quickly was) seen as supportive of positions 3a and 3b too. The most important example being:

“a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a  blessing that descends from God upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but 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.”

The fact that FS spoke of blessing ‘couples’, as opposed to ‘unions’ or ‘relationships, seemed like little more than arbitrary word choice, which would give ‘popesplainers’ the most barebone level of plausible deniability against assertions that Rome had changed Catholic doctrine on homosexual relationships.

Only the most radical progressives had real reasons to be upset about it and even they could feel happy, knowing that steps were being made that could lead to their extremist positions being embraced down the line. Bonny expressed happiness regarding the document. 

The reaffirmation that homosexual relationships couldn’t be blessed in a way that seemed similar to marriage offered little consolation to the orthodox faithful, as the door finally seemed to be opened to blessing extramarital sexual unions. The fact that the sexual activity in this unions was still called sinful in Fiducia Supplicans was soon to become a dead letter, and both the mainstream media, as well as the modernist bishops in Germany and Belgium reacted to the document as such.

A radical reversal

The press release attempted to desperately make the distinction between couples and their unions/relationships (which Fiducia Supplicans had not outright described, but left as a possible orthodox interpretation) into a reality. Not only can’t gay couples receive any blessing that even remotely resembles a marriage ceremony, they can’t have no their union blessed, period, just as the 2021 Responsum said. Further limitations were also added with the blessing not only being forbidden in connection to a civil union or having any form of rite similar to marriage, but with it needing to take place away from the altar and in ways that completely avoid scandal.

Only the two individuals who form the couple can be blessed, as all sinners can be. People rightfully objected that when a homosexual couple asks to be blessed as a couple and presents themselves as such, it is practically impossible to bless them as a couple, but not their union. The distinction between ‘couples’ and the ‘union’ that binds them as a couple might be interesting to philosophers, but does not exist in the real world.

Fernandez however made clear in the press release, that priests could only make the sign of the cross over each individual separately, not over the two together. Additionally, the prayer described by Fernandez in the ‘clarification’ did not focus on any alleged positive elements in extramarital or homosexual relationships, but instead made a more clear reference to such relationships being problematic and requiring grace to change sinners.

This raises the question why the Vatican needed to release a document to state the fact, known to virtually all, that the Church can bless sinners, but not sin and that priests can pray for struggling sinners who desire to receive God’s support. It also raises the question whether the blessing of sinners is somehow possible as non-liturgical. Is the blessing that people receive during communion when they approach the priest with their arms crossed a ‘non-liturgical blessing’, even though it takes place during the liturgy? As a beloved Dutch priest, Father Elias, questioned, a year ago (loosely translated): 

What defines a ‘blessing’ by a cleric? Isn’t the difference between a natural benevolent personal gesture and a blessing by an ordained priest, that the latter blessing not only is recognizable as such by a specific form, specific words or a sign, which were transferred by Sacred Tradition, but also by the fact it is given with a specific mandate of, and reference to, God as transcendent Source of authority? Which has to be recognized, as well as intended, by both the mandated person, as by the person seeking the blessing? So isn’t it the case, that a clerical blessing is in essence a ‘ritual’, by its very nature, with an objective meaning? Looking at meaning and origin of a priestly blessing makes a ‘non-liturgical’ blessing per definition a meaningless contradiction, denying the essence of the given blessing by the mediator of grace from a higher authority.  

Why was a ‘unique development’ regarding ‘non-liturgical blessings’ important when it appeared to result in a return to the status quo?

The sudden backtracking on homosexual relationships was prompted by the widespread backlash to Fiducia Supplicans. Within days of its release, supermajorities of bishops in various African countries blatantly defied the Vatican and indicated they opposed the document. Within roughly 24 hours the bishops of Malawi rejected the document, followed by those in Zambia, Namibia, Benin, Togo and Angola and São Tomé (the latter rejecting an earlier Responsum from Fernandez that allowed practicing homosexuals and transsexuals to serve as godparents, as well). Then Cardinal Ambongo, long viewed as a more centrist prelate and an important ally of Pope Francis who even serves on his council of cardinal advisers, turned against FS and called on African bishops from across the continent to provide a united response against it.

The bishops from Poland and Hungary (who include several cardinals) also rejected FS, along with the Ukrainian Catholic and Chaldean Catholic rites. The bishops of Haiti, including Cardinal Langlois (named cardinal by Pope Francis), rejected it. Even in South America, Cardinal Sturla, another Francis appointee long viewed as a liberal. openly rejected the document during an interview where he also signaled a stronger stance against abortion and euthanasia.

Ironically the American bishops who are often portrayed by liberal media as Pope Francis’ fiercest opponents stayed largely neutral during the whole affair. 

On top of that, the document faced significant pushback from both the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox churches who released official declarations condemning it and even froze ecumenical dialogue as a result. While some liberal prelates might prefer pretending Anglican orders are valid and starting intercommunion with liberal Protestants, Pope Francis does not appear ready to give up on the dream of reunion with the Eastern and Oriental schismatic churches.

The Vatican under Francis, clearly giving in to conservatives and providing clarification, represented the exact opposite of what had happened after the release of Amoris Laetitia. While the radical modernist faction in the Vatican was likely prepared to ignore criticisms from the same dubia cardinals it had ignored for nearly a decade, it clearly was not ready to face an open revolt of an entire continent. 

While the rejection by African bishops centered primarily on homosexual relationships, they did not approve of the permissive approach of Fiducia Supplicans being applied to divorced and remarried or to unmarried couples, either. The Polish and Russian Catholic bishops went further and explicitly rejected the blessing of heterosexual couples in extramarital and divorced remarried relationships, too, while the Africans did not apply Fiducia Supplicans to polygamous couples, in spite of pressure to implement a local pastoral approach for polygamists. 

The African bishops went even beyond the press release. While it allowed bishops to restrict the local implementation, it forbade a total prohibition on priests to bless couples in irregular situations. Yet, the African continental declaration did just that. And even more surprising, this declaration was approved by Pope Francis ánd Fernandez. Worth noting, too, is that both this continental declaration and the press release left authority regarding the implementation of FS with the local bishop and not the national bishops’ conference, further confirming that Pope Francis had moved away from a stance supportive of doctrinal authority for such ecclesial bodies.

Some commentators predicted that the Vatican might follow a two speed approach to reform, endorsing a radical liberal interpretation of Fiducia Supplicans shortly after approving the African rejection. Nothing of the sort ended up happening, however. Neither Pope Francis, nor Fernandez, endorsed anything resembling a blessing of gay, unmarried or divorced and remarried couples after the controversy, neither publicly nor privately. No bishop, whether in Austria, Switzerland or Luxembourg claimed Pope Francis had privately endorsed any gay blessings after the controversy surrounding Fiducia Supplicans.

Requests for blessings of homosexual couples ended up being rare; and scandalous photos were even more rare after the initial few weeks after FS was released. Though liberal Vincentian Father Joseph S. Williams in Chicago provided a scandalous blessing of a gay union in the spring of 2024, he ended up having to apologize, in spite of serving under arch-liberal cardinal Cupich. Pope Francis, Fernandez and Cupich ended up enforcing the orthodox practice regarding homosexuality.

There are various factors that can help explain the near universal African (and to some extent Eastern European) backlash against Fiducia Supplicans which forced this unprecedented about-face by Pope Francis.

• Amoris Laetitia gave the pretense of being based on the two sessions of the Synod on the Family (even though it went beyond this on key points and re-used rejected radical proposals in watered down form), while Fiduia Supplicans represented a blatant sidestepping of the ongoing synod.
• Increasing awareness of the flourishing vocations and number of faithful in Africa, which has emboldened the local churches.
• The lack of discretionary authority for local bishops to decide on the implementation of Fiducia Supplicans which Amoris Laetitia did provide.
• The fact that access to the sacraments for adulterous divorced remarried in certain liberal Western countries is something African prelates can more easily ‘agree to disagree’ on than any seeming approval of homosexual relationships.
• A general weariness regarding Pope Francis’ pontificate, scandals, controversial foreign policy decisions, the lack of proper communication before Traditionis Custodes was imposed, which has been perceived at the Vatican’s lukewarm response to the controversial Synodal Path. 
• 
  

Regardless of the reason, the weaponized ambiguity popularized by Amoris Laetitia had finally faced a rebuttal it couldn’t ignore.

Conclusion: Synodality undermining the synodal oligarchy

Orthodox prelates from Africa, Eastern Europe and even the Netherlands collegially rejected Fiducia Supplicans. They used synodal mechanisms and language to reject radical proposals pushed by a loud liberal minority. Who preaches a lot about synodality, but rarely practices it. Decentralization of authority to episcopal conferences and individuals bishops, synodality on the continental level, the third world and ecumenics, all have been touted as important issues by modernists, yet these all ended up working against the homosexualist agenda.

Liberals have repeatedly touted collegiality and the peripheries, while actually pushing the agenda of a minority Western elite during the various synods under Pope Francis. Now, the hypocrisy and contradictions finally ended up undoing the liberal campaign to normalize homosexuality within Catholicism.

If Fiducia Supplicans has any real lasting effects it will likely be that African bishops are aware of their growing influence and that many of Pope Francis’ own cardinals are now weary of another Pope like him.