The publication was carried out by the “Veritas Amoris Project,” founded in 2019, with the objective of continuing the work of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family. Benedict XVI’s text appears in the third volume of the Italian Review of the project, a space that seeks to trace ways to the truth of love amid a world in constant transformation. 

One of the most salient points of the writing is the Pope Emeritus’ criticism of today’s ideological currents, such as gender ideology and the manipulation of life in laboratories. According to Benedict XVI, these tendencies are the fruit of a Marxism disguised as extreme liberalism, which has deformed the concept of freedom and threatens to undermine the essence of what it means to be human. Through his words, the Pope Emeritus seeks to stress that truth without love becomes cold, and that it is in the combination of both where hope lies in  a more just and human society. 

This last intellectual legacy of Benedict XVI not only invites to profound reflection on the most urgent questions of our time, but it also leaves a clear warning: humanity must find a balance between progress and the preservation of its nature, or run the risk of losing itself in the confusion of modern times. Following is an English translation of the article.

* * *

“The Christian Image of Man”

By Benedict XVI

(Published originally here in Italian)

The atmosphere that spread widely in Catholic Christianity after Vatican Council II was initially conceived in a unilateral manner as a demolition of walls, as “tear down the fortresses,” in such a way that in certain circles the fear began of the end of Catholicism, or also to expect it joyfully.

Paul VI’s firm determination and John Paul II’s equally clear and happily open one, were able to ensure to the Church again —  speaking humanly — her own space in future history. When John Paul II, who came from a country dominated by Marxism, was elected Pope, some thought that a Pope who came from a Socialist country would necessarily be a Socialist Pope and, hence, would carry out the reconciliation of the world as a “reductio ad unum” of Christianity and Marxism. The senselessness of this position became rapidly evident, as soon as it was seen that a Pope from a Socialist world knew perfectly well the injustices of that system, and it was thus that he was able to contribute to the surprising turn that occurred in 1989, with the end of the Marxist Government in Russia. 

However, it became ever more evident that the decline of the Marxist regimes was far from having constituted a spiritual victory of Christianity. On the contrary, a radical secularization was revealed increasingly as the authentic dominant vision, increasingly depriving Christianity of its vital space. 

From its beginnings, modernity began with the call to man’s freedom — from Luther’s emphasis on the Christian’s freedom and from the humanism of Erasmus of Rotterdam. However, it was only in the time of the historical troubles after two World Wars, when Marxism and Liberalism went to dramatic extremes, that two new Movements arose that took the idea of freedom to an unimaginable radicalism up to then.  

In fact, now it is denied that man, as free being, is in some way linked to a nature that determines the space of his freedom. Man no longer has a nature, but he “makes” himself. A human nature no longer exists: it is he who decides what he is, man or woman. It is man that produces man and who thus decides the destiny of a being who no longer comes from the hand of a Creator God, but from the laboratory of human inventions. The abolition of the Creator like the abolition of man then became the genuine threat to faith. This is the great challenge that is presented today to Theology. And it will only be able to face it if Christians’ example of life is stronger than the power of the denials that surround us and promise us a false freedom. 

The awareness of the impossibility of resolving a problem of this size solely at the theoretical level does not exempt us, however, from trying to propose a solution at the level of thought. 

Nature and freedom seem, in the first instance, to be opposed in an irreconcilable way, however, the nature of man is thought, namely, it is creation and, as such, it is not simply a reality deprived of spirit, but has in itself the “Logos”. The Fathers of the Church – and in particular Athanasius of Alexandria – conceived creation as the coexistence of uncreated “sapientia” and created “sapientia”. Here we touch upon the mystery of Jesus Christ, who unites in Himself created and uncreated wisdom and who, as incarnate wisdom, calls us to be together with Him. 

Thus, nature, which is given to man, is no longer distinct from the history of man’s freedom, and carries within itself two fundamental moments.

On the one hand, we are told that the human being, the man Adam, began his history badly from the beginning, in such a way that the fact of being human, the humanity of each one, carries within it an original defect. “Original sin” means that every individual action is previously inscribed in an erroneous way.

However, to this is added the figure of Jesus Christ, the new Adam, who paid in advance the redemption for all of us, thus offering a new beginning in history. This means that man’s nature is, in some way, sick, that it needs correction (“spoliate et vulnerate”). This places it in opposition to the spirit, to freedom, just as we experience it continually. However, in general terms, it is also redeemed now. And this in a twofold sense: because in general the sufficient has already been done for all sins and because, at the same time, this correction can always be given to each one in the Sacrament of Forgiveness. 

On one hand, the history of man is the history of ever new failures; on the other hand, healing is always available. Man is a being who needs healing, forgiveness. The fact that this forgiveness exists as a reality and not only  as a beautiful dream belongs to the heart of the Christian image of man. Here is where the doctrine of the Sacraments finds its just place. The necessity of Baptism and of Penance, of the Eucharist and the Priesthood, just like the Sacrament of Marriage. 

It is from here that the question of the Christian image of man can then be addressed concretely. First of all, the observation expressed by Saint Francis of Sales is important: “one” image of man doesn’t exist, but many possibilities and many ways in which the image of man is presented: from Peter to Paul, from Francis to Thomas Aquinas, from Brother Konrad to Cardinal Newman, and thus successively, where there is undoubtedly a certain emphasis that speaks in favour of a predilection for the “little ones.” 

Naturally, it would also be worth examining, in this context, the interaction between the “Torah” and the Sermon on the Mount, of which I have already talked about briefly in my book on Jesus.

The post “The Christian Image of Man,” Unpublished Text That Benedict XVI Authorized Be Published After His Death appeared first on ZENIT - English.

***

Origin and status of the document 

The study document The Bishop of Rome is the first document to summarize the entire  ecumenical debate on the service of primacy in the Church since the Second Vatican Council.  The origin of this text goes back to St John Paul II’s invitation to other Christians to find,  ‘together, of course’, the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome “may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned” (UUS 95). Numerous responses to this invitation  have been formulated, as well as reflections on the topic and various suggestions from the theological dialogues.

In 2020, the 25^th anniversary of Ut unum sint, the Dicastery for Promoting Christian  Unity saw an opportunity to synthesize these reflections and gather the main fruits. Pope Francis  himself called for this, noting that “we have made little progress in this regard” (Evangelii  Gaudium 32). Moreover, the convocation of the Synod on Synodality has confirmed the  relevance of this project as a contribution to the ecumenical dimension of the synodal process.

The status of the text is that of a ‘study document’ that does not claim to exhaust the  subject nor summarize the entire Catholic magisterium on the subject. Its purpose is to offer an  objective synthesis of the ecumenical discussion on the subject, thus reflecting its insights, but  also its limitations.

Drafting process 

The document is the fruit of almost three years of truly ecumenical and synodal work.  It summarizes some 30 responses to Ut unum sint and 50 ecumenical dialogue documents on  the subject. It involved not only the Officials, but also the 46 Members and Consultors of the  Dicastery who discussed it at two Plenary Meetings. The best Catholic experts on the subject  were consulted, as well as numerous Orthodox and Protestant experts, in collaboration with the  Institute for Ecumenical Studies of the Angelicum. Finally, the text was sent to various  Dicasteries of the Roman Curia and to the Synod of Bishops. In all, more than fifty opinions  and written contributions were considered. All were positive about the initiative, methodology,  structure and main ideas of the document.

Document Structure 

The document offers a schematic presentation

1) of the responses to Ut unum sint and the documents of the theological dialogues  devoted to the question of primacy;

2) of the main theological questions that traditionally question the papal primacy and  some significant developments in contemporary ecumenical reflection: a renewed reading of  the ‘Petrine texts’; overcoming the opposition between de iure divino and de iure humano; a  hermeneutical re-reading of the dogmas of the primacy of jurisdiction and infallibility (Vatican  Council I);

3) of some perspectives for a ministry of unity in a reunited Church: necessity or  otherwise of a primacy in the Church; the criteria of the first millennium; principles for the  exercise of primacy in the 21^st century;

4) of practical suggestions or requests addressed to the Catholic Church: renewed  interpretation of Vatican I; differentiated exercise of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome;  synodality ad intra; synodality ad extra.

In addition to this synthesis, the document concludes with a brief proposal from the  Plenary Assembly of the Dicastery, entitled Towards an Exercise of Primacy in the 21^st Century, which identifies the most significant suggestions put forward by the various dialogues  for a renewed exercise of the Bishop of Rome’s ministry of unity ‘recognized by all concerned.

Main ideas of the Document 

The Study Document points out that:

1) the dialogue documents and the responses to Ut  unum sint have made a significant contribution to reflection on the question of primacy and  synodality;

2) all the documents agree on the need for a service of unity at the universal level,  even if the foundations of this service and the ways in which should be exercised are subject to  different interpretations;

3) unlike the controversies of the past, the question of primacy is no  longer seen simply as a problem, but also as an opportunity for a common reflection on the  nature of the Church and its mission in the world;

4) the Petrine ministry of the Bishop of Rome  is intrinsic to the synodal dynamic, as is the communitarian aspect that includes the entire  people of God and the collegial dimension of the episcopal ministry.

Among the future steps to be taken in the theological dialogues, the Document  suggests the need for:

1) a better connection between the dialogues – local and international,  official and unofficial, bilateral and multilateral, Eastern and Western – in order to enrich each  other;

2) addressing primacy and synodality together, which are not two opposing ecclesial  dimensions, but rather two mutually supportive realities,

3) a clarification of vocabulary;

4)  promoting the reception of the results of the dialogues at all levels, so that they can become a  common heritage; 5) theological interpretation of the current relations between the Churches,  since the ‘dialogue of truth’ should not only focus on past doctrinal differences.  

SUMMARY OF THE DOCUMENT “THE BISHOP OF ROME” 

(nn. 166-181) 

1. Theunderstanding and exercise of the ministry of the Bishop of Rome entered a new phase  with the Second Vatican Council. Since then, the ecumenical dimension has been an essential  aspect of this ministry, as illustrated by successive popes. John Paul II’s invitation in Ut unum sint to find, with the help of the Pastors and theologians of all Churches, a way of exercising  primacy “recognized by all concerned”, marked an epochal moment in this ecumenical  awareness. That invitation finds particular support in the context of the pontificate of Pope  Francis, whose teaching and practice emphasise the synodal dimension of his ministry.

ECUMENICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE MINISTRY  OF THE BISHOP OF ROME

2. The invitation inUt unum sint elicited a wide range of responses and ecumenical  reflections. The ecumenical theological dialogues, official and unofficial, national and  international, initiated after Vatican II, have also proven to be, during the last decades, a  privileged place for research into a ministry of unity at the universal level. Identifying the main  themes and perspectives, they illustrate the interest in this topic and the developments in the  discussion with the different Christian traditions. They also evidence a new and positive  ecumenical spirit in discussing this question.
3. Thisnew climate is indicative of the good relations established between Christian  communions, and especially between their leaders. At a time when the relationships between  Churches are intensifying, this “rediscovered brotherhood” (UUS 42) should also be re-read  theologically, alongside the dogmatic differences of the past. This life of relationships includes  a growing awareness of ‘mutual accountability’ between Christian communions. 
4. It should be noted thatthe concerns, emphases and conclusions of the different dialogues  vary according to the confessional traditions involved. Furthermore, not all the theological  dialogues have treated the topic at the same level or in the same depth. If some have dedicated  entire documents to the subject, others have only treated it in the context of broader documents,  while others again are yet to address the matter. Without wanting to obscure these different  approaches and accents, nevertheless the following fruits can be identified.

NEW APPROACHES TO TRADITIONALLY CONTESTED THEOLOGICAL ISSUES

5. One of the fruits of the theological dialogues is a renewed reading of the ‘Petrine texts’,  which have historically been a major stumbling block between Christians. Dialogue partners  have been challenged to avoid anachronistic projections of later doctrinal developments and to  consider afresh the role of Peter among the apostles. On the basis of contemporary exegesis and  patristic research,new insights and mutual enrichment has been achieved, challenging some  traditional confessional interpretations. A diversity of images, interpretations and models in the  New Testament have been rediscovered, while biblical notions such as episkopè (the ministry  of oversight), diakonia, and the concept of ‘Petrine function’, have helped develop a more  comprehensive understanding of the ‘Petrine texts’.
6. Another controversial issue is theCatholic understanding of the primacy of the Bishop  of Rome as established de iure divino, while most other Christians understand it as being  instituted merely de iure humano. Hermeneutical clarifications have helped to put into new  perspective this traditional dichotomy, by considering primacy as both de iure divino and de  iure humano, that is, being part of God’s will for the Church and mediated through human  history. Superseding the distinction between de iure divino and de iure humano the dialogues  have emphasized instead the distinction between the theological essence and the historical  contingency of primacy – as expressed in Ut unum sint (UUS 95). On this basis they call for a greater attention to and assessment of the historical context that conditioned the exercise of  primacy in different regions and periods.
7. The dogmatic definitions of the First Vatican Council are a significant obstacle for other  Christians. Some ecumenical dialogues have registered promising progress when undertaking a  ‘re-reading’ or ‘re-reception’ of this Council, opening up new avenues for a more accurate  understanding of its teaching. This hermeneutical approach emphasizes the importance of  interpreting the dogmatic statements of Vatican I not in isolation, but in the light of their  historical context, of their intention and of their reception – especially through the teaching of  Vatican II.
8. Studying the history of the text ofPastor æternus, and especially the proceedings of the  Council and the background that conditioned the choice of terms used (‘ordinary’, ‘direct’,  ‘immediate’), some dialogues were able to clarify the dogmatic definition of universal  jurisdiction, by identifying its extension and limits. Similarly, they were able to clarify the  wording of the dogma of infallibility and even to agree on certain aspects of its purpose,  recognizing the need, in some circumstances, for a personal exercise of the teaching ministry,  given that Christian unity is a unity in truth and love. In spite of these clarifications the dialogues  still express concerns regarding the relation of infallibility to the primacy of the Gospel, the  indefectibility of the whole Church, the exercise of episcopal collegiality and the necessity of  reception.

PERSPECTIVES FOR A MINISTRY OF UNITY IN A RECONCILED CHURCH

9. Thesenew approaches to fundamental theological questions raised by primacy at the  universal level have opened new perspectives for a ministry of unity in a reconciled Church.  Many theological dialogues and responses to Ut unum sint, based mostly on arguments  concerned with the bene esse rather than the esse of the Church, acknowledge the requirement  for a primacy at the universal level. Referring to apostolic tradition, some dialogues argue  that, from the early Church, Christianity was established on major apostolic sees occupying a  specific order, the see of Rome being the first. Based on ecclesiological considerations, a  number of dialogues have maintained that there is a mutual interdependency of primacy and  synodality at each level of the life of the Church: local, regional, but also universal. Another  argument, of a more pragmatic nature, is founded on the contemporary context of globalization  and on missionary requirements.
10. Theological dialogues, particularly with the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches,  recognize thatprinciples and models of communion honoured in the first millennium (or,  for the latter, until the middle of the fifth century), remain paradigmatic. Indeed, during that  period, Christians from East and West lived in communion despite certain temporary ruptures,  and the essential structures of the Church were constituted and shared. Certain criteria of the  first millennium were identified as points of reference and sources of inspiration for the  acceptable exercise of a ministry of unity at the universal level, such as: the informal – and not  primarily jurisdictional – character of the expressions of communion between the Churches;  the ‘primacy of honour’ of the Bishop of Rome; the interdependency between the primatial and  synodal dimensions of the Church as illustrated by Apostolic Canon 34; the right of appeal as  an expression of communion (Canons of Sardica); the paradigmatic character of the ecumenical  councils; and the diversity of ecclesial models.
11. Although the first millennium is decisive, many dialogues recognize that it should not be  idealized nor simply re-created, since the developments of the second millennium cannot be  ignored and also because a primacy at the universal level should respond to contemporary  challenges.Some principles for the exercise of primacy in the 21^st century have been identified. A first general agreement is the mutual interdependency of primacy and synodality  at each level of the Church, and the consequent requirement for a synodal exercise of primacy.  A further agreement concerns the articulation between ‘all’, ‘some’ and ‘one’, three  complementary dimensions of the Church, at each ecclesial level: the ‘communal’ dimension  based on the sensus fidei of all the baptized; the ‘collegial’ dimension, expressed especially in  episcopal collegiality; and the ‘personal’ dimension expressed in the primatial function.  Different dialogues identify the synodal dynamic inherent in the articulation of these three  dimensions.
12. Ecumenical reflection has also contributed to the recognition that the Petrine function must  be understood within the context of a wider ecclesiological perspective.In considering primacy,  many theological dialogues have noted that these three dimensions – communal, collegial, and  personal – are operative within each of the three levels of the Church: local, regional and  universal. In this respect, a crucial issue is the relationship between the local Church and the  universal Church, which has important consequences for the exercise of primacy. Ecumenical  dialogues helped bring about agreement on the simultaneity of these dimensions, insisting that  it is not possible to separate the dialectical relationship between the local Church and the  universal Church.
13. Another important consideration related to the different levels in the Church is the  ecclesiological significance of the regional or supra-local dimension in the Church. Many  dialogues stress the need for a balance between the exercise of primacy on a regional and  universal level, noting that in most Christian communions the regional level is the most relevant  for the exercise of primacy and also for their missional activity.Some theological dialogues  with the Western Christian communions, observing an ‘asymmetry’ between these  communions and the Catholic Church, call for a strengthening of Catholic episcopal  conferences, including at the continental level, and for a continuing ‘decentralization’ inspired  by the model of the ancient patriarchal Churches.
14. The significance of the regional level is also advocated in the dialogues with the Orthodox  and Oriental Orthodox Churches, which emphasize the necessity of a balance between  primacy and primacies. These dialogues insist that the “ecumenical endeavour of the Sister  Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total  communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love” (O–C 1993,  14).In a reconciled Christianity, such communion presupposes that the Bishop of Rome’s  “relationship to the Eastern Churches and their bishops […] would have to be substantially  different from the relationship now accepted in the Latin Church” (O–C US 2010, 7a), and that  the Churches will “continue to have the right and power to govern themselves according to their  own traditions and disciplines” (Coptic–Catholic dialogue, 1979).
15. The Orthodox–Catholic dialogue also allowed a new critical reading of the phenomenon  of ‘uniatism’, closely related to the question of primacy and to an ecclesiology claiming the  direct jurisdiction of the Roman See over all the local Churches, which “can no longer be  accepted either as a method to be followed nor as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking” (O–C, 1993, 12). The historical phenomenon of ‘uniatism’ should yet be distinguished from the  current reality of the Eastern Catholic Churches, which represent a particular paradigm of ‘unity  in diversity’ due to their sui iuris status in the Catholic Church maintaining their autonomy  within synodical structures. Nevertheless, the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches do  not recognise the present relationship with Rome of the Eastern Catholic Churches as a model  for future communion. 
16. Considerations regarding the different levels of the Church lead to reflection onthe  principle of subsidiarity. This principle means that no matter that can properly be dealt with at a lower level should be taken to a higher one. Subsidiarity is recognised as an important  principle if the exercise of primacy is to guarantee the participation of the whole Church in the  decision-making process. Some dialogues apply this principle in defining an acceptable model  of ‘unity in diversity’ with the Catholic Church. They argue that the power of the Bishop of  Rome should not exceed that required for the exercise of his ministry of unity at the universal  level, and suggest a voluntary limitation in the exercise of his power – while recognizing that  he will need a sufficient amount of authority to meet the many challenges and complex  obligations related to his ministry.

SOME PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS

17. Throughout the ecumenical dialogues and responses toUt unum sint concerning primacy,  various practical suggestions or requests have been made to the different Christian  communions, and especially to the Catholic Church. Since the first ecumenical duty of  Catholics is “to examine their own faithfulness to Christ’s will for the Church and accordingly  to undertake with vigour the task of renewal and reform” (UR 4), they are invited to seriously  consider the suggestions made to them so that a renewed understanding and exercise of papal  primacy can contribute to the restoration of Christian unity. 
18. Afirst proposal is a Catholic ‘re-reception’, ‘re-interpretation’, ‘official interpretation’,  ‘updated commentary’ or even ‘rewording’ of the teachings of Vatican I. Indeed, some  dialogues observe that these teachings were deeply conditioned by their historical context, and  suggest that the Catholic Church should look for new expressions and vocabulary faithful to  the original intention but integrated into a communio ecclesiology and adapted to the current  cultural and ecumenical context.
19. A second suggestionmade by some ecumenical dialogues is a clearer distinction between  the different responsibilities of the Bishop of Rome, especially between his patriarchal  ministry in the Church of the West and his primatial ministry of unity in the communion of  Churches, both West and East, possibly extending this idea to consider how other Western  Churches might relate to the Bishop of Rome as primate while having a certain autonomy  themselves. There is also a need to distinguish the patriarchal and primatial roles of the Bishop  of Rome from his political function as head of State. A greater accent on the exercise of the  ministry of the Pope in his own particular Church, the diocese of Rome, would highlight the  episcopal ministry he shares with his brother bishops, and renew the image of the papacy.  
20. A third recommendation made by the theological dialogues concerns the development of synodality within the Catholic Church. Putting an emphasis on the reciprocal relation  between the Catholic Church’s synodal shaping ad intra and the credibility of her ecumenical  commitment ad extra, they identified areas in which a growing synodality is required within  the Catholic Church. They suggest in particular further reflection on the authority of national  and regional Catholic bishops’ conferences, their relationship with the Synod of Bishops and  with the Roman Curia. At the universal level, they stress the need for a better involvement of  the whole People of God in the synodal processes. In a spirit of the ‘exchange of gifts’,  procedures and institutions already existing in other Christian communions could serve as a  source of inspiration.
21. A last proposal is the promotion of ‘conciliar fellowship’ through regular meetings among  Church leaders at a worldwide level in order to make visible and deepen the communion they  already share. In the same spirit, many dialogues have proposed different initiatives to promote synodality between Churches, especially at the level of bishops and primates, through regular  consultations and common action and witness.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post The Bishop of Rome: Primacy and Synodality. Summary, ideas and proposals of a new Vatican document appeared first on ZENIT - English.

***

We are writing this Press Release to help clarify the reception of Fiducia supplicans, while recommending at the same time a full and calm reading of the Declaration so as to better understand its meaning and purpose.

1. Doctrine 

The understandable statements of some Episcopal Conferences regarding the document Fiducia supplicans have the value of highlighting the need for a more extended period of pastoral reflection. What is expressed by these Episcopal Conferences cannot be interpreted as doctrinal opposition, because the document is clear and definitive about marriage and sexuality. There are several indisputable phrases in the Declaration that leave this in no doubt:

“This Declaration remains firm on the traditional doctrine of the Church about marriage, not allowing any type of liturgical rite or blessing similar to a liturgical rite that can create confusion». One acts in these situations of couples in irregular situations “without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage” (Presentation).

“Therefore, rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage – which is the «exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children» – and what contradicts it are inadmissible. This conviction is grounded in the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage; it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning. The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm” (4).

“Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex” (5).

“For this reason, since the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice” (11).

Evidently, there is no room to distance ourselves doctrinally from this Declaration or to consider it heretical, contrary to the Tradition of the Church or blasphemous.

2. Practical reception 

Some Bishops, however, express themselves in particular regarding a practical aspect: the possible blessings of couples in irregular situations. The Declaration contains a proposal for short and simple pastoral blessings (neither liturgical nor ritualised) of couples in irregular situations (but not of their unions), underlining that these are blessings without a liturgical format which neither approve nor justify the situation in which these people find themselves.

Documents of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith such as Fiducia supplicans, in their practical aspects, may require more or less time for their application depending on local contexts and the discernment of each diocesan Bishop with his Diocese. In some places no difficulties arise for their immediate application, while in others it will be necessary not to introduce them, while taking the time necessary for reading and interpretation.

Some Bishops, for example, have established that each priest must carry out the work of discernment and that he may, however, perform these blessings only in private. None of this is problematic if it is expressed with due respect for a text signed and approved by the Supreme Pontiff himself, while attempting in some way to accommodate the reflection contained in it.

Each local Bishop, by virtue of his own ministry, always has the power of discernment in loco, that is, in that concrete place that he knows better than others precisely because it is his own flock. Prudence and attention to the ecclesial context and to the local culture could allow for different methods of application, but not a total or definitive denial of this path that is proposed to priests.

3. The delicate situation of some countries 

The cases of some Episcopal Conferences must be understood in their contexts. In several countries there are strong cultural and even legal issues that require time and pastoral strategies that go beyond the short term.

If there are laws that condemn the mere act of declaring oneself as a homosexual with prison and in some cases with torture and even death, it goes without saying that a blessing would be imprudent. It is clear that the Bishops do not wish to expose homosexual persons to violence. It remains vital that these Episcopal Conferences do not support a doctrine different from that of the Declaration signed by the Pope, given that it is perennial doctrine, but rather that they recommend the need for study and discernment so as to act with pastoral prudence in such a context.

In truth, there are not a few countries that, to varying degrees, condemn, prohibit and criminalize homosexuality. In these cases, apart from the question of blessings, there exists a great and wide-ranging pastoral responsibility that includes training, the defense of human dignity, the teaching of the Social Doctrine of the Church and various strategies that do not admit of a rushed response.

4. The real novelty of the document 

The real novelty of this Declaration, the one that requires a generous effort of reception and from which no one should declare themselves excluded, is not the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations. It is the invitation to distinguish between two different forms of blessings: «liturgical or ritualized» and «spontaneous or pastoral». The Presentation clearly explains that “the value of this document […] is that it offers a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings, permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings, which is closely linked to a liturgical perspective”. This “theological reflection, based on the pastoral vision of Pope Francis, implies a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church”.

In the background is found the positive evaluation of «popular pastoral care» which appears in many of the Holy Father’s texts. In this context, the Holy Father invites us to value the simple faith of the People of God who, even in the midst of their sins, emerge from their everyday lives and open their hearts to ask for God’s help.

For this reason, rather than the blessing of couples in irregular unions, the text of the Dicastery has adopted the other profile of a «Declaration», which is much more than a responsum or a letter. The central theme, which invites us especially to a deeper pastoral practice which enriches our pastoral praxis, is to have a broader understanding of blessings and of the proposal that these pastoral blessings, which do not require the same conditions as blessings in a liturgical or ritual context, flourish. Consequently, leaving polemics aside, the text requires an effort to reflect serenely, with the heart of shepherds, free from all ideology.

Although some Bishops consider it prudent not to impart these blessings for the moment, we all need to grow equally in the conviction that: non-ritualized blessings are not a consecration of the person nor of the couple who receives them, they are not a justification of all their actions, and they are not an endorsement of the life that they lead. When the Pope asked us to grow in a broader understanding of pastoral blessings, he proposed that we think of a way of blessing that does not require the placing of so many conditions to carry out this simple gesture of pastoral closeness, which is a means of promoting openness to God in the midst of the most diverse circumstances.

5. How do these «pastoral blessings» present themselves in concrete terms? 

To be clearly distinguished from liturgical or ritualized blessings, «pastoral blessings» must above all be very short (see n. 38). These are blessings lasting a few seconds, without an approved ritual and without a book of blessings. If two people approach together to seek the blessing, one simply asks the Lord for peace, health and other good things for these two people who request it. At the same time, one asks that they may live the Gospel of Christ in full fidelity and so that the Holy Spirit can free these two people from everything that does not correspond to his divine will and from everything that requires purification.

This non-ritualized form of blessing, with the simplicity and brevity of its form, does not intend to justify anything that is not morally acceptable. Obviously it is not a marriage, but equally it is not an «approval» or ratification of anything either. It is solely the response of a pastor towards two persons who ask for God’s help. Therefore, in this case, the pastor does not impose conditions and does not enquire about the intimate lives of these people.

Since some have raised the question of what these blessings might look like, let us look at a concrete example: let us imagine that among a large number making a pilgrimage a couple of divorced people, now in a new union, say to the priest: «Please give us a blessing, we cannot find work, he is very ill, we do not have a home and life is becoming very difficult: may God help us!».

In this case, the priest can recite a simple prayer like this: «Lord, look at these children of yours, grant them health, work, peace and mutual help. Free them from everything that contradicts your Gospel and allow them to live according to your will. Amen«. Then it concludes with the sign of the cross on each of the two persons. 

We are talking about something that lasts about 10 or 15 seconds. Does it make sense to deny these kinds of blessings to these two people who ask for them? Is it not more appropriate to support their faith, whether it be small or great, to assist them in their weaknesses with a divine blessing, and to channel that openness to transcendence which could lead them to be more faithful to the Gospel?

In order to avoid any doubt, the Declaration adds that, when the blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation, «even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding. The same applies when the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple» (n. 39). It remains clear, therefore, that the blessing must not take place in a prominent place within a sacred building, or in front of an altar, as this also would create confusion.

For this reason, every Bishop in his Diocese is authorized by the Declaration Fiducia supplicans to make this type of simple blessing available, bearing in mind the need for prudence and care, but in no way is he authorized to propose or make blessings available that may resemble a liturgical rite.

6. Catechesis 

In some places, perhaps, some catechesis will be necessary that can help everyone to understand that these types of blessings are not an endorsement of the life led by those who request them. Even less are they an absolution, as these gestures are far from being a sacrament or a rite. They are simple expressions of pastoral closeness that do not impose the same requirements as a sacrament or a formal rite. We will all have to become accustomed to accepting the fact that, if a priest gives this type of simple blessings, he is not a heretic, he is not ratifying anything nor is he denying Catholic doctrine.

We can help God’s People to discover that these kinds of blessings are just simple pastoral channels that help people give expression to their faith, even if they are great sinners. For this reason, in giving a blessing to two people who come together to ask for it spontaneously, we are not consecrating them nor are we congratulating them nor indeed are we approving that type of union. In reality the same happens when individuals are blessed, as the individual who asks for a blessing – not absolution could be a great sinner, but this does not mean we deny him this paternal gesture in the midst of his struggle to survive.

—

If this is clarified as a result of good catechesis, we can free ourselves from the fear that these blessings of ours may express something inadequate. We can be freer and perhaps closer and more fruitful ministers, with a ministry that is full of gestures of fatherhood and hospitality, without fear of being misunderstood.

We ask the newly-born Lord to shower a generous and gracious blessing upon everyone so that we can live a holy and happy 2024.

The post Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issues new clarification on blessings to gay and irregular couples appeared first on ZENIT - English.

* * *

Fiducia Supplicans

On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings

Presentation

This Declaration considers several questions that have come to this Dicastery in recent years. In preparing the document, the Dicastery, as is its practice, consulted experts, undertook a careful drafting process, and discussed the text in the Congress of the Doctrinal Section of the Dicastery. During that time, the document was discussed with the Holy Father. Finally, the text of the Declaration was submitted to the Holy Father for his review, and he approved it with his signature.

While the subject matter of this document was being studied, the Holy Father’s response to the Dubia of some Cardinals was made known. That response provided important clarifications for this reflection and represents a decisive element for the work of the Dicastery. Since “the Roman Curia is primarily an instrument at the service of the successor of Peter” (Ap. Const. Praedicate Evangelium, II, 1), our work must foster, along with an understanding of the Church’s perennial doctrine, the reception of the Holy Father’s teaching.

As with the Holy Father’s above-mentioned response to the Dubia of two Cardinals, this Declaration remains firm on the traditional doctrine of the Church about marriage, not allowing any type of liturgical rite or blessing similar to a liturgical rite that can create confusion. The value of this document, however, is that it offers a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings, permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings, which is closely linked to a liturgical perspective. Such theological reflection, based on the pastoral vision of Pope Francis, implies a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church. This explains why this text has taken on the typology of a “Declaration.”

It is precisely in this context that one can understand the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage.

This Declaration is also intended as a tribute to the faithful People of God, who worship the Lord with so many gestures of deep trust in his mercy and who, with this confidence, constantly come to seek a blessing from Mother Church.

Víctor Manuel Card. FERNÁNDEZ

Prefect

Introduction

1. The supplicating trust of the faithful People of God receives the gift of blessing that flows from the Heart of Christ through his Church. Pope Francis offers this timely reminder: “The great blessing of God is Jesus Christ. He is the great gift of God, his own Son. He is a blessing for all humanity, a blessing that has saved us all. He is the Eternal Word, with whom the Father blessed us ‘while we were still sinners’ (Romans 5:8), as St. Paul says. He is the Word made flesh, offered for us on the cross.”^[1]
2. Encouraged by such a great and consoling truth, this Dicastery has considered several questions of both a formal and an informal nature about the possibility of blessing same-sex couples and—in light of Pope Francis’ fatherly and pastoral approach—of offering new clarifications on the Responsum ad dubium^[2]that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published on February 22, 2021.
3. The above-mentioned Responsum elicited numerous and varied reactions: some welcomed the clarity of the document and its consistency with the Church’s perennial teaching; others did not share the negative response it gave to the question or did not consider the formulation of its answer and the reasons provided in the attached Explanatory Noteto be sufficiently clear. To meet the latter reaction with fraternal charity, it seems opportune to take up the theme again and offer a vision that draws together the doctrinal aspects with the pastoral ones in a coherent manner because “all religious teaching ultimately has to be reflected in the teacher’s way of life, which awakens the assent of the heart by its nearness, love, and witness.”^[3]
4. The Blessing in the Sacrament of Marriage
5. Pope Francis’ recent responseto the second of the five questions posed by two Cardinals^[4]offers an opportunity to explore this issue further, especially in its pastoral implications. It is a matter of avoiding that “something that is not marriage is being recognized as marriage.”^[5] Therefore, rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage—which is the “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children”^[6]—and what contradicts it are inadmissible. This conviction is grounded in the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage; it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning. The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm.
6. This is also the understanding of marriage that is offered by the Gospel. For this reason, when it comes to blessings, the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion. Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.
7. It should be emphasized that in the Rite of the Sacrament of Marriage, this concerns not just any blessing but a gesture reserved to the ordained minister. In this case, the blessing given by the ordained minister is tied directly to the specific union of a man and a woman, who establish an exclusive and indissoluble covenant by their consent. This fact allows us to highlight the risk of confusing a blessing given to any other union with the Rite that is proper to the Sacrament of Marriage.
8. The Meaning of the Various Blessings
9. The Holy Father’s above-mentioned response invites us to broaden and enrich the meaning of blessings.
10. Blessings are among the most widespread and evolving sacramentals. Indeed, they lead us to grasp God’s presence in all the events of life and remind us that, even in the use of created things, human beings are invited to seek God, to love him, and to serve him faithfully.^[7]For this reason, blessings have as their recipients: people; objects of worship and devotion; sacred images; places of life, of work, and suffering; the fruits of the earth and human toil; and all created realities that refer back to the Creator, praising and blessing him by their beauty.

The Liturgical Meaning of the Rite” of ’Blessing

9. From a strictly liturgical point of view, a blessing requires that what is blessed be conformed to God’s will, as expressed in the teachings of the Church.
10. Indeed, blessings are celebrated by virtue of faith and are ordered to the praise of God and the spiritual benefit of his people. As the Book of Blessings explains, “so that this intent might become more apparent, by an ancient tradition, the formulas of blessing are primarily aimed at giving glory to God for his gifts, asking for his favors, and restraining the power of evil in the world.”^[8]Therefore, those who invoke God’s blessing through the Church are invited to “strengthen their dispositions through faith, for which all things are possible” and to trust in “the love that urges the observance of God’s commandments.”^[9]This is why, while “there is always and everywhere an opportunity to praise God through Christ, in the Holy Spirit,” there is also a care to do so with “things, places, or circumstances that do not contradict the law or the spirit of the Gospel.”^[10] This is a liturgical understanding of blessings insofar as they are rites officially proposed by the Church.
11. Basing itself on these considerations, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Explanatory Note to its 2021 Responsum recalls that when a blessing is invoked on certain human relationships by a special liturgical rite, it is necessary that what is blessed corresponds with God’s designs written in creation and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. For this reason, since the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice. The Holy Father reiterated the substance of this Declaration in his Answers to the Dubia oftwo Cardinals.
12. 12. One must also avoid the risk of reducing the meaning of blessings to this point of view alone, for it would lead us to expect the same moral conditions for a simple blessing that are called for in the reception of the sacraments. Such a risk requires that we broaden this perspective further. Indeed, there is the danger that a pastoral gesture that is so beloved and widespread will be subjected to too many moral prerequisites, which, under the claim of control, could overshadow the unconditional power of God’s love that forms the basis for the gesture of blessing.
13. Precisely in this regard, Pope Francis urged us not to “lose pastoral charity, which should permeate all our decisions and attitudes” and to avoid being “judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.”^[11]Let us then respond to the Holy Father’s proposal by developing a broader understanding of blessings.

Blessings in Sacred Scripture

14. To reflect on blessings by gathering different points of view, we first need to be enlightened by the voice of Scripture.
15. “May the Lord bless you and keep you. May the Lord make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you. May the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace” (Numbers 6:24-26). This “priestly blessing” we find in the Old Testament, specifically in the Book of Numbers, has a “descending” character since it represents the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon man: it is one of the oldest texts of divine blessing. Then, there is a second type of blessing we find in the biblical pages: that which “ascends” from earth to heaven, toward God. Blessing in this sense amounts to praising, celebrating, and thanking God for his mercy and his faithfulness, for the wonders he has created, and for all that has come about by his will: “Bless the Lord, my soul, and all that is within me, bless his holy name!” (Psalm 103:1).
16. To God who blesses, we also respond by blessing. Melchizedek, King of Salem, blesses Abram (cf. Gen. 14:19); Rebekah is blessed by family members just before she becomes the bride of Isaac (cf. Gen. 24:60), who, in turn, blesses his son, Jacob (cf. Genesis 27:27). Jacob blesses Pharaoh (cf. Genesis 47:10), his own grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh (cf. Genesis 48:20), and his twelve sons (cf. Genesis 49:28). Moses and Aaron bless the community (cf. Exodus 39:43; Leviticus 9:22). The heads of households bless their children at weddings, before embarking on a journey, and in the imminence of death. These blessings, accordingly, appear to be a superabundant and unconditional gift.
17. The blessing found in the New Testament retains essentially the same meaning it had in the Old Testament. We find the divine gift that “descends,” the human thanksgiving that “ascends,” and the blessing imparted by man that “extends” toward others. Zechariah, having regained the use of speech, blesses the Lord for his wondrous works (cf. Luke 1:64). Simeon, while holding the new-born Jesus in his arms, blesses God for granting him the grace to contemplate the saving Messiah, and then blesses the child’s parents, Mary and Joseph (cf. Luke 2:34). Jesus blesses the Father in the famous hymn of praise and exultation he addressed to him: “I praise you, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matthew 11:25).
18. In continuity with the Old Testament, in Jesus as well the blessing is not only ascending, referring to the Father, but is also descending, being poured out on others as a gesture of grace, protection, and goodness. Jesus himself implemented and promoted this practice. For example, he blessed children: “And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them” (Mark 10:16). And Jesus’ earthly journey will end precisely with a final blessing reserved for the Eleven, shortly before he ascends to the Father: “And lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven” (Luke 24:50-51). The last image of Jesus on earth is that of his hands being raised in the act of blessing.
19. In his mystery of love, through Christ, God communicates to his Church the power to bless. Granted by God to human beings and bestowed by them on their neighbours, the blessing is transformed into inclusion, solidarity, and peace-making. It is a positive message of comfort, care, and encouragement. The blessing expresses God’s merciful embrace and the Church’s motherhood, which invites the faithful to have the same feelings as God toward their brothers and sisters.

A Theological-Pastoral Understanding of Blessings

20. One who asks for a blessing show himself to be in need of God’s saving presence in his life and 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.
21. In order to help us understand the value of a more pastoral approach to blessings, Pope Francis urges us to contemplate, with an attitude of faith and fatherly mercy, the fact that “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.”^[12]This request should, in every way, be valued, accompanied, and received with gratitude. 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.
22. As St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus teaches us, this confidence “is the sole path that leads us to the Love that grants everything. With confidence, the wellspring of grace overflows into our lives […]. It is most fitting, then, that we should place heartfelt trust not in ourselves but in the infinite mercy of a God who loves us unconditionally […]. The sin of the world is great but not infinite, whereas the merciful love of the Redeemer is indeed infinite.”^[13]
23. When considered outside of a liturgical framework, these expressions of faith are found in a realm of greater spontaneity and freedom. Nevertheless, “the optional nature of pious exercises should in no way be taken to imply an under-estimation or even disrespect for such practices. The way forward in this area requires a correct and wise appreciation of the many riches of popular piety, [and] of the potentiality of these same riches.”^[14]In this way, blessings become a pastoral resource to be valued rather than a risk or a problem.
24. From the point of view of pastoral care, blessings should be evaluated as acts of devotion that “are external to the celebration of the Holy Eucharist and of the other sacraments.” Indeed, the “language, rhythm, course, and theological emphasis” of popular piety differ “from those of the corresponding liturgical action.” For this reason, “pious practices must conserve their proper style, simplicity, and language, [and] attempts to impose forms of ‘liturgical celebration’ on them are always to be avoided.”^[15]
25. The Church, moreover, must shy away from resting its pastoral praxis on the fixed nature of certain doctrinal or disciplinary schemes, especially when they lead to “a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying.”^[16]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.
26. In this perspective, the Holy Father’s Answers aid in expanding the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 2021 pronouncement from a pastoral point of view. For, the Answers invite discernment concerning the possibility of “forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey an erroneous conception of marriage”^[17]and, in situations that are morally unacceptable from an objective point of view, account for the fact that “pastoral charity requires us not to treat simply as ‘sinners’ those whose guilt or responsibility may be attenuated by various factors affecting subjective imputability.”^[18]
27. In the catechesis cited at the beginning of this Declaration, Pope Francis proposed a description of this kind of blessing that is offered to all without requiring anything. It is worth reading these words with an open heart, for they help us grasp the pastoral meaning of blessings offered without preconditions: “It is God who blesses. In the first pages of the Bible, there is a continual repetition of blessings. God blesses, but humans also give blessings, and soon it turns out that the blessing possesses a special power, which accompanies those who receive it throughout their lives, and disposes man’s heart to be changed by God. ^[…] So we are more important to God than all the sins we can commit because he is father, he is mother, he is pure love, he has blessed us forever. And he will never stop blessing us. It is a powerful experience to read these biblical texts of blessing in a prison or in a rehabilitation group. To make those people feel that they are still blessed, notwithstanding their serious mistakes, that their heavenly Father continues to will their good and to hope that they will ultimately open themselves to the good. Even if their closest relatives have abandoned them, because they now judge them to be irredeemable, God always sees them as his children.”^[19]
28. There are several occasions when people spontaneously ask for a blessing, whether on pilgrimages, at shrines, or even on the street when they meet a priest. By way of example, we can refer to theBook of Blessings, which provides several rites for blessing people, including the elderly, the sick, participants in a catechetical or prayer meeting, pilgrims, those embarking on a journey, volunteer groups and associations, and more. Such blessings are meant for everyone; no one is to be excluded from them. In the introduction to the Order for the Blessing of Elderly People, forexample, it is stated that the purpose of this blessing is “so that the elderly themselves may receive from their brethren a testimony of respect and gratitude, while together with them, we give thanks to the Lord for the favors they received from him and for the good they did with his help.”^[20] In this case, the subject of the blessing is the elderly person, for whom and with whom thanks is being given to God for the good he has done and for the benefits received. No one can be prevented from this act of giving thanks, and each person—even if he or she lives in situations that are not ordered to the Creator’s plan—possesses positive elements for which we can praise the Lord.
29. From the perspective of the ascending dimension, when one becomes aware of the Lord’s gifts and his unconditional love, even in sinful situations—particularly when a prayer finds a hearing—the believer’s heart lifts its praise to God and blesses him. No one is precluded from this type of blessing. Everyone, individually or together with others, can lift their praise and gratitude to God.
30. The popular understanding of blessings, however, also values the importance of descending blessings. While “it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops’ Conference, or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially establish procedures or rituals for all kinds of matters,”^[21]pastoral prudence and wisdom—avoiding all serious forms of scandal and confusion among the faithful—may suggest that the ordained minister join in the prayer of those persons who, although in a union that cannot be compared in any way to a marriage, desire to entrust themselves to the Lord and his mercy, to invoke his help, and to be guided to a greater understanding of his plan of love and of truth.

III. Blessings of Couples in Irregular Situations and of Couples of the Same Sex

31. Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex, the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage. In such cases, 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. These forms of blessing express a supplication that God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his Spirit—what classical theology calls “actual grace”—so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love.
32. Indeed, the grace of God works in the lives of those who do not claim to be righteous but who acknowledge themselves humbly as sinners, like everyone else. This grace can orient everything according to the mysterious and unpredictable designs of God. Therefore, with its untiring wisdom and motherly care, the Church welcomes all who approach God with humble hearts, accompanying them with those spiritual aids that enable everyone to understand and realize God’s will fully in their existence.^[22]
33. This is a blessing that, although not included in any liturgical rite,^[23]unites intercessory prayer with the invocation of God’s help by those who humbly turn to him. God never turns away anyone who approaches him! Ultimately, a blessing offers people a means to increase their trust in God. The request for a blessing, thus, expresses and nurtures openness to the transcendence, mercy, and closeness to God in a thousand concrete circumstances of life, which is no small thing in the world in which we live. It is a seed of the Holy Spirit that must be nurtured, not hindered.
34. The Church’s liturgy itself invites us to adopt this trusting attitude, even in the midst of our sins, lack of merits, weaknesses, and confusions, as witnessed by this beautiful Collect from the Roman Missal: “Almighty ever-living God, who in the abundance of your kindness surpass the merits and the desires of those who entreat you, pour out your mercy upon us to pardon what conscience dreads and to give what prayer does not dare to ask” (Collect for the Twenty-Seventh Sunday of Ordinary Time). How often, through a pastor’s simple blessing, which does not claim to sanction or legitimize anything, can people experience the nearness of the Father, beyond all “merits” and “desires”?
35. Therefore, the pastoral sensibility of ordained ministers should also be formed to perform blessings spontaneously that are not found in the Book of Blessings.
36. In this sense, it is essential to grasp the Holy Father’s concern that these non-ritualized blessings never cease being simple gestures that provide an effective means of increasing trust in God on the part of the people who ask for them, careful that they should not become a liturgical or semi-liturgical act, similar to a sacrament. Indeed, such a ritualization would constitute a serious impoverishment because it would subject a gesture of great value in popular piety to excessive control, depriving ministers of freedom and spontaneity in their pastoral accompaniment of people’s lives.
37. In this regard, there come to mind the following words of the Holy Father, already quoted in part: “Decisions that may be part of pastoral prudence in certain circumstances should not necessarily become a norm. That is to say, it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops’ Conference, or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially establish procedures or rituals for all kinds of matters […]. Canon Law should not and cannot cover everything, nor should the Episcopal Conferences claim to do so with their various documents and protocols, since the life of the Church flows through many channels besides the normative ones.”^[24]Thus Pope Francis recalled that “what is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances cannot be elevated to the level of a rule” because this “would lead to an intolerable casuistry.”^[25]
38. For this reason, one should neither provide for nor promote a ritual for the blessings of couples in an irregular situation. At the same time, one should not prevent or prohibit the Church’s closeness to people in every situation in which they might seek God’s help through a simple blessing. In a brief prayer preceding this spontaneous blessing, the ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance—but also God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely.
39. In any case, precisely to avoid any form of confusion or scandal, when the prayer of blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation, even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding. The same applies when the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple.
40. Such a blessing may instead find its place in other contexts, such as a visit to a shrine, a meeting with a priest, a prayer recited in a group, or during a pilgrimage. Indeed, through these blessings that are given not through the ritual forms proper to the liturgy but as an expression of the Church’s maternal heart—similar to those that emanate from the core of popular piety—there is no intention to legitimize anything, but rather to open one’s life to God, to ask for his help to live better, and also to invoke the Holy Spirit so that the values of the Gospel may be lived with greater faithfulness.
41. 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.^[26]
42. The Church is the Sacrament of God’s Infinite Love
43. The Church continues to lift up those prayers and supplications that Christ himself—with loud cries and tears—offered in his earthly life (cf. Heb. 5:7), and which enjoy a special efficacy for this reason. In this way, “not only by charity, example, and works of penance, but also by prayer does the ecclesial community exercise a true maternal function in bringing souls to Christ.”^[27]
44. The Church is thus the sacrament of God’s infinite love. Therefore, even when a person’s relationship with God is clouded by sin, he can always ask for a blessing, stretching out his hand to God, as Peter did in the storm when he cried out to Jesus, “Lord, save me!” (Mt. 14:30). Indeed, desiring and receiving a blessing can be the possible good in some situations. Pope Francis reminds us that “a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties.”^[28]In this way, “what shines forth is the beauty of the saving love of God made manifest in Jesus Christ, who died and rose from the dead.”^[29]
45. Any blessing will be an opportunity for a renewed proclamation of the kerygma, an invitation to draw ever closer to the love of Christ. As Pope Benedict XVI taught, “Like Mary, the Church is the mediator of God’s blessing for the world: she receives it in receiving Jesus and she transmits it in bearing Jesus. He is the mercy and the peace that the world, of itself, cannot give, and which it needs always, at least as much as bread.”^[30]
46. Taking the above points into account and following the authoritative teaching of Pope Francis, this Dicastery finally wishes to recall that “the root of Christian meekness” is “the ability to feel blessed and the ability to bless […]. This world needs blessings, and we can give blessings and receive blessings. The Father loves us, and the only thing that remains for us is the joy of blessing him, and the joy of thanking him, and of learning from him ^[…] to bless.”^[31]In this way, every brother and every sister will be able to feel that, in the Church, they are always pilgrims, always beggars, always loved, and, despite everything, always blessed.

Víctor Manuel Card. FERNÁNDEZ

Prefect

Mons. Armando MATTEO

Secretary for the Doctrinal Section

Ex Audientia Die December18, 2023

Francis

Notes:

_____________

^[1] Francis, Catechesis on Prayer: The Blessing December 2, 2020).

^[2] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, «Responsum» ad «dubium» de benedictione unionem personarum eiusdem sexus et Nota esplicativa (March 15, 2021): AAS 113 (2021), 431-434.

^[3] Francis, Ap. Exhort. Evangelii Gaudium (November 24, 2013), no. 42: AAS 105 (2013), 1037-1038.

^[4] Cf. Francis, Answers to the Dubia proposed by two Cardinals (July 11, 2023).

^[5] Ibid., ad dubium 2, c.

^[6] Ibid., ad dubium 2, a.

^[7] Cfr. Rituale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Ioannis Pauli PP. II promulgatum, De Benedictionibus, Praenotanda, Editio typica, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano 2013, no. 12.

^[8] Ibid., no. 11: “Quo autem clarius hoc pateat, antiqua ex traditione, formulae benedictionum eo spectant ut imprimis Deum pro eius donis glorificent eiusque impetrent beneficia atque maligni potestatem in mundo compescant.”

^[9] Ibid., no. 15: “Quare illi qui benedictionem Dei per Ecclesiam expostulant, dispositiones suas ea fide confirment, cui omnia sunt possibilia; spe innitantur, quae non confundit; caritate praesertim vivificentur, quae mandata Dei servanda urget.”

^[10] Ibid., no. 13: “Semper ergo et ubique occasio praebetur Deum per Christum in Spiritu Sancto laudandi, invocandi eique gratias reddendi, dummodo agatur de rebus, locis, vel adiunctis quae normae vel spiritui Evangelii non contradicant.”

^[11] Francis, Answers to the Dubia proposed by two Cardinals, ad dubium 2, d.

^[12] Ibid., ad dubium 2, e.

^[13] Francis, Ap. Exhort. C’est la Confiance (October 15, 2023), nos. 2, 20, 29.

^[14] Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy. Principles and Guidelines (April 9, 2002), no. 12.

^[15] Ibid., no. 13.

^[16] Francis, Exhort. Ap. Evangelii Gaudium (November 24, 2013), no. 94: AAS 105 (2013), 1060.

^[17] Francis, Answers to the Dubia proposed by two Cardinals, ad dubium 2, e.

^[18] Ibid., ad dubium 2, f.

^[19] Francis, Catechesis on Prayer: The Blessing (December 2, 2020).

^[20] De Benedictionibus, no. 258: “Haec benedictio ad hoc tendit ut ipsi senes a fratribus testimonium accipiant reverentiae grataeque mentis, dum simul cum ipsis Domino gratias reddimus pro beneficiis ab eo acceptis et pro bonis operibus eo adiuvante peractis.”

^[21] Francis, Answers to the Dubia proposed by two Cardinals, ad dubium 2, g.

^[22] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Ap. Exhort. Amoris Laetitia (March 19, 2016), no. 250: AAS 108 (2016), 412-413.

^[23] Cf. Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy (9 April 2002), no. 13: “The objective difference between pious exercises and devotional practices should always be clear in expressions of worship. […] Acts of devotion and piety are external to the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, and of the other sacraments.”

^[24] Francis, Answers to the Dubia proposed by two Cardinals, ad dubium 2, g.

^[25] Francis, Post-Synodal Ap. Exhort. Amoris Laetitia (March 19, 2016), no. 304: AAS 108 (2016), 436.

^[26] Cf. ibid.

^[27] Officium Divinum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum, Liturgia Horarum iuxta Ritum Romanum, Institutio Generalis de Liturgia Horarum, Editio typica altera, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano 1985, no. 17: “Itaque non tantum caritate, exemplo et paenitentiae operibus, sed etiam oratione ecclesialis communitas verum erga animas ad Christum adducendas maternum munus exercet.”

^[28] Francis, Ap. Exhort. Evangelii Gaudium (November 24, 2013), no. 44: AAS 105 (2013), 1038-1039.

^[29] Ibid., no. 36: AAS 105 (2013), 1035.

^[30] Benedict XVI, Homily on the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. 45^th World Day of Peace, Vatican Basilica (January 1,2012): Insegnamenti VIII, 1 (2012), 3.

^[31] Francis, Catechesis on Prayer: The Blessing (December 2, 2020), L’Osservatore Romano, December 2, 2020, p. 8.

The post Vatican’s Yes to “Pastoral” Blessings on Homosexuals and Divorced, No to Liturgical or Semi-Liturgical Blessings appeared first on ZENIT - English.

Membership in Freemasonry is very significant in the Philippines, not only among those formally registered in Masonic Lodges, but more generally among a great number of sympathisers and associates who are personally convinced that there is no opposition between membership in the Catholic Church and membership in Masonic Lodges.

To address this question appropriately, it was decided to involve the Philippine Episcopal Conference itself, notifying it that it would be necessary to initiate a coordinated strategy among the different Bishops, which included two approaches.

a)On the doctrinal plane, it is important to recall that active membership in Freemasonry by a faithful is prohibited due to the irreconcilability between Catholic Doctrine and Freemasonry (cf. 1983 Declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the same Guidelines published by th Episcopal Conference in 2003). Hence those that formally and consciously affiliate themselves to Freemason Lodges and embrace Masonic principles fall under the dispositions oof the Declaration mentioned earlier. These measures apply also to priests registered in Freemasonry.

b) On the pastoral plane, the Dicastery proposes to the Philippine Bishops to carry out a popular catechesis in all the parishes, on the reason for the irreconcilability of the Catholic Faith and Freemasonry.

Finally, the Philippine Bishops are invited to consider if they should pronounce themselves publicly on the matter.

Sheet of Audience with the Holy Father (November 13, 2023)

The post Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith Confirms that Catholics Cannot Be Members of Freemasonry appeared first on ZENIT - English.

After studying the matter, the Dicastery responded as follows:

Answers of the Dicastery to H.E. Monsignor Negri

 The following answers repropose, in essence, the fundamental contents of what has already been affirmed by the Dicastery in the past in regard to this matter (1).

1.Can a transexual be baptized?

A transexual — who in addition has undergone hormonal treatment and sex realignment surgery — can receive Baptism, under the same conditions as other faithful, if there are not situations in which the risk exists of generating public scandal or disorientation among the faithful. In the case of children or adolescents with transexual problems, if they are well prepared and willing, they can receive Baptism.

At the same time, the following must be taken into account, especially when there are doubts about a person’s objective moral situation or subjective dispositions to grace. In the case of Baptism, the Church teaches that when the Sacrament is received with the repentance of grave sins, the individual does not receive sanctifying grace but does receive the sacramental character.

The Catechism states: “This configuration with Christ and with the Church, made by the Spirit, is indelible; it remains for ever in a Christian as positive disposition to grace, as promise and guarantee of divine protection, and as vocation to divine worship and to the service of the Church” (2). Saint Thomas Aquinas taught, in fact, that when the impediment to grace disappears, in one who has received Baptism without the due dispositions, the character itself “is an immediate cause that disposes to receive the grace” (3). Saint Augustine of Hippo recalled this situation saying that, even if a man falls into sin, Christ does not destroy the character received  by him in Baptism and seeks (quaerit) the sinner, in whom is imprinted this character that identifies him as His property (4).

Thus is understood why Pope Francis wished to underscore that Baptism “is the door that enables Christ the Lord to install Himself in our person and submerge us in His Mystery” (5). This implies concretely  that “not even the doors of the Sacraments must be closed for any motive. This is especially true when it is about that Sacrament that is “the door,” Baptism […] the Church is not a customs house; it is the Paternal House where there is place for every person with their own laborious life” (6). Hence, even when doubts exist about a person’s objective moral situation or their subjective dispositions to grace, one must never forget this aspect of fidelity of God’s unconditional love, able to generate even with the sinner an irrevocable alliance, always open as well to an unforeseeable development.

This is true even when the resolution to amend does not appear in a fully manifest way in the penitent, because often the foreseeable new fall “does not undermine the authenticity of the intention” (7). In any case, the Church must always call to live fully all the implications of the Baptism received, which must always be understood and displayed within the itinerary of Christian initiation.

2. Can a transexual be a godfather or godmother of Baptism?

In certain conditions, an adult transexual that, moreover, has undergone hormonal treatment and a sex realignment operation can be admitted to carry out the function of godfather or godmother. However, given that this task does not constitute a right, pastoral prudence exacts that it not be permitted if the danger of scandal exists, undue legitimation or disorientation in the educational ambit of the ecclesial community.

3. Can a transexual be a witness at a wedding?

There is nothing in current universal canon law that prohibits a transexual person from being a witness at a wedding.

4. Can two homo-affective people figure as parents of a child who must be baptized and who was adopted or obtained with methods such as surrogacy?

For a child to be baptized hope must exist founded on the [fact] that it will be educated in the Catholic religion (cf.  c.868 § 1,2 or CCC; c. 681, § 1, or CCEO).

5. Can a homosexual and cohabitant person be godparent of a baptized person?

According to canons 874 § 1, 1 and 3 of the Code of Canon Law, a person can be godfather or godmother if he/she has the aptitude to be so (cf. 1) and “leads a life in accordance with the faith and the task entrusted to him/her” (3; cf. c. 685, § 2 CCEO). The case is different when the coexistence of two homosexual people consists not in simple cohabitation but in a stable and admittedly more uxorio [as man and wife] well known by the community.

In any case due pastoral prudence calls for weighing wisely each situation, to safeguard the Sacrament of Baptism and, especially, its reception, which is a precious good that must be safeguarded, given that it is necessary for salvation (8).

At the same time, the real value must be taken into account, which the ecclesial community grants to the duties of godfathers and godmothers, the role they carry out in the community and the consideration they show to the teaching of the Church.

Finally, the possibility, must also be taken into account, that another person of the family

circle acts as guarantor of the correct transmission of the Catholic faith to the person that is going to be baptized, knowing that that the person that is going to be baptized can still be assisted, during the rite, not only as godfather or godmother, but also as witness of the baptismal act.

6. Can a person that cohabits be a witness at a marriage?

There is nothing in existing universal Canon Law that prohibits a homo-affective and cohabiting person from being a witness at a marriage.

Notes:

(1)Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Confidential note on some canonical questions relating to transsexualism (December 21, 2018), Vatican City , Under pontifical secrecy.

(2) Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1121.

(3) SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS, I Sent IV, 4, 3, 2, 3: ‘est inmediata causa disponens ad gratiam’; IDEM, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 69 a. 9 ad 1: ‘Et sic omnes induunt Christum per configurationem characteris, non autem per conformitatem  gratiae’ (‘And in this sense all are clothed in Christ  through configuration with Him by character, no longer by grace’).

(4) Cf. Saint Augustine of Hippo, Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesiae Plebem, 2; PL 43, 691-692: ‘Nunc vero ipse desertor, characterem  fixit  imperatoris sui. Deus et Dominus noster Jesus Christus quaerit desertorem, delet erroris criminem, sed non exterminate suum characterem.”

(5) FRANCIS, Apostolic Exhortation  Evangelii Gaudium, on the proclamation of the Gospel in the today’s world (November 24, 2023), n. 47.

(7) JOHN PAUL II, Letter to Cardinal William W. Baum on the occasion of the course  on the Internal Forum organized by the Apostolic Penitentiary (March 22, 1996), 5: Insegnamenti XIX, 1 [1996], 589.

(8) Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1277.

Translation of the Italian original into Spanish by ZENIT’s Editorial Director and, into English, by Virginia M. Forrester

The post Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith Responds to Doubts Regarding Baptism of Transexuals and Homosexuals as Godparents in Sacraments appeared first on ZENIT - English.

* * *

“God created mankind in His image; in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them.”
(Genesis 1:27)

September 29, 2023 | Feast of the Archangels

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

The influence of gender ideology has become pervasive in contemporary society. As a result, many of the faithful and those who serve in our ministries have raised questions around the complex and sensitive topics of gender, sexual identity, and the nature of the human person. In light of recent guidance from the Church and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), and in keeping with our pastoral responsibility to instruct the faithful, we seek with this pastoral letter to provide clarity and resources with regard to the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the nature of the human person.

Pope Francis has called gender ideology “one of the most dangerous ideological colonizations.”¹ By “ideological colonization,” Pope Francis means that there are powerful cultural influences emerging in various forms of media including publishing, social media, and other influential content, which exert tremendous influence on the culture. Gender ideology denies certain fundamental aspects of human existence, such as male-female sexual difference, the reciprocal complementarity of man and woman, and the essential unity of body and soul in the human person. Gender ideology is, in many important respects, radically opposed to a sound understanding of human nature, leading to forms of cultural influence, especially via education and legislation, that promote a notion of personal identity which is left to the choice of the individual and that deny the anthropological basis of the family as founded on the biological difference between male and female.² It is thus opposed to reason, to science, and to a Christian view of the human person.

Throughout her history, the Catholic Church has opposed notions of dualism³ that posit the body and soul as separate, non-integrated entities. The body is an integral and indispensable aspect of what it means to be a human person. The body and soul come into existence together, in an individual human being at the time of conception. From the beginning of his or her existence, the human person has a body that is sexually differentiated as male or female.⁴ “‘Being man’ or ‘being woman’ is a reality which is good and willed by God.”⁵ Consequently, one can never be said to be in the “wrong” body.⁶ “For this reason,” the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, “man may not despise his bodily life. Rather, he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.”⁷ Male-female sexual difference and complementarity are also essential to a Christian understanding of marital conjugal union, which is itself an image of Trinitarian communion. Eliminating this difference would diminish in man and woman part of what it means to bear God’s image and likeness. In addition, it would do away with the very basis of the family, the “first vital cell of society.”⁸ Doing so would be an offense against human dignity and a social injustice.

Many faithful Catholics demonstrate solidarity with those suffering from gender dysphoria, unjust discrimination, or other questions related to gender identity and sincerely desire to respond in love to their sisters and brothers. The Church is called to do as Jesus did, to accompany in a spirit of solidarity those marginalized and suffering while affirming the beauty and truth of God’s creation. “Truth is the light that gives meaning and value to charity…. Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell.”⁹ Compassion that does not include both truth and charity is a misplaced compassion. Support for those experiencing gender dysphoria must be characterized by an active concern for genuine Christian charity and the truth about the human person. It is, in fact, the truth about the dignity of each person which demands that no one should suffer bullying, violence, insults, or unjust discrimination.¹⁰

To those experiencing gender dysphoria, we wish to reaffirm that God knows us, loves each of us, and desires our flourishing. Jesus reminds us, “I have come that they might have life and have it abundantly.” (John 10:10) Our lives, even our very identity can seem to us at times to be a mystery. They can be a source of confusion, perhaps even anguish and suffering. Know that your life is not a mystery to God, Who has counted every hair on your head (Luke12:7), Who created your innermost being, and Who knit you together in your mother’s womb (Psalm139). In taking on a bodily human nature, Jesus reveals the goodness of our created bodies and the closeness of God to each one of us. He is not far off or indifferent to our questioning, our challenges, or our sufferings. He comes to meet us in them and to reveal to us the depth of His love and mercy. The Second Vatican Council declared that “only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light.”¹¹ This is a way of saying that, in becoming one of us, Jesus not only reveals God to us, but reveals us to us. Our identity is not something we invent or create for ourselves. Your most fundamental identity is that of a beloved child of God. Recognize that the desire to understand who you are is a desire to know yourself as created, known, and loved by God. The Church, for her part, desires to listen and to walk with you as you come to understand and accept the totality of who God made you to be.

After listening and dialogue, both the Holy See and the USCCB, as well as a number of other Catholic dioceses, have offered guidance regarding the complexities of sexual identity issues as they relate to Church teaching, Catholic healthcare, Catholic education, and the accompaniment of those suffering from gender dysphoria. Some of this guidance is referenced below. The complexities and moral implications of alterations to the human body are treated extensively in the Doctrinal Note on the Moral Limits to Technological Manipulation of the Human Body issued by the USCCB Committee on Doctrine on March 20, 2023. A link to the document is included here as a resource. The Doctrinal Note affirms the fundamental order of the human person as a unity of body and soul, including the sexual difference inscribed in the body. Great harm can be done in situations where medical procedures and treatments fail to respect the fundamental created order of the human person. We especially encourage physicians and healthcare workers, those considering medical treatments for gender dysphoria, and anyone caring for people suffering from gender dysphoria to carefully consider the information contained in the Doctrinal Note. May our Christian witness and our care for those experiencing real suffering be a sign of our discipleship as we joyfully witness to the healing power of Christ.

Given here are selected resources intended to help to deepen an understanding of the Catholic Church’s teaching on questions relating to sexual identity and gender dysphoria. To those who carry out our ministries, we invite you to familiarize yourselves with the Church’s teaching in order to accompany those we serve in love and truth. Let us continue to lovingly propose to everyone the deepest truth about the human person as revealed by Jesus Christ, that, in the words of Pope Benedict XVI, “each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed. Each of us is loved. Each of us is necessary.”¹²

Related Resources

1. Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995). Paragraphs 355-384& 2331-2336.
2. Doctrinal Noteon the Moral Limits to Technological Manipulation of the Human Body (USCCB, 2023).
3. Male and Female He Created Them: Towards a Path of Dialogue on the Question of Gender Theory in Education (Congregation for Catholic Education, 2019)
4. “Pope Francis: Gender ideology is ‘one of the most dangerous ideological colonizations’ today” (Catholic News Agency, March 11, 2023).
5. Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia(Pope Francis, 2016). Nos. 56, 285-286.
6. “A Catechesis on the Human Person and Gender Ideology” (Most Rev. Michael F. Burbidge, Diocese of Arlington, 2021).

End Notes

1. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253845/pope-francis-gender-ideology-is-one-of-the-most-dangerous-ideological-colonizations-today.︎
2. Congregation for Catholic Education, ‘Male and Female He Created Them’: Towards a Path of Dialogue on the Question ofGender Theory in Education, 2 (2019). ︎
3. USCCB Committee on Doctrine, Doctrinal Note on the Moral Limits to Technological Manipulation of the Human Body, 4 (March 20, 2023). ︎
4. While there are a small percentage of individuals affected by disorders of sexual development or sexual ambiguity, their biological sex may be identifiable through genetic techniques or other medical means, albeit with some difficulty. ︎
5. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 369. ︎
6. Committee on Doctrine, Doctrinal Note, ︎
7. Gaudium et Spes, 14 (1965). Quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 364. ︎
8. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 211 (2004). ︎
9. Pope Benedict XVI, Encyclical Caritas in Veritate, 3 (2009). ︎
10. Male and Female He Created Them, 16 (2019.) ︎
11. Gaudium et Spes, 22. ︎
12. ¹²Homily for the inauguration of the papacy of Benedict XVI, (April 24, 2005). ︎

The post USA: Two Bishops Publish Letter on Gender Ideology (Full Text) appeared first on ZENIT - English.

Here is the text of the Holy Father’s Message, translated from the Italian original by the Holy See.

* * *

After having reflected in past years on the verbs “to go and see” and “to listen” as conditions for good communication, with this Message for the LVII World Day of Social Communications, I would like to focus on “speaking with the heart”. It is the heart that spurred us to go, to see and to listen, and it is the heart that moves us towards an open and welcoming way of communicating. Once we have practised listening, which demands waiting and patience, as well as foregoing the assertion of our point of view in a prejudicial way, we can enter into the dynamic of dialogue and sharing, which is precisely that of communicating in a cordial way. 

After listening to the other with a pure heart, we will also be able to speak following the truth in love (cf. Ephesians 4:15). We should not be afraid of proclaiming the truth, even if it is at times uncomfortable, but of doing so without charity, without heart. Because “the Christian’s programme” — as Benedict XVI wrote — “is ‘a heart which sees.’” [1] A heart that reveals the truth of our being with its beat and that, for this reason, should be listened to. This leads those who listen to attune themselves to the same wave length, to the point of being able to hear within their heart also the heartbeat of the other. Then the miracle of encounter can take place, which makes us look at one another with compassion, welcoming our mutual frailties with respect rather than judging by hearsay and sowing discord and division.

Jesus warns us that every tree is known by its fruit (cf. Luke 6:44): “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks” (v. 45). This is why, in order to communicate truth with charity, it is necessary to purify one’s heart. Only by listening and speaking with a pure heart can we see beyond appearances and overcome the vague din which, also in the field of information, does not help us discern in the complicated world in which we live. The call to speak with the heart radically challenges the times in which we are living, which are so inclined towards indifference and indignation, at times even on the basis of disinformation which falsifies and exploits the truth.

Communicating cordially

Communicating in a cordial manner means that those who read or listen to us are led to welcome our participation in the joys, fears, hopes and suffering of the women and men of our time. Those who speak in this way love the other because they care and protect their freedom without violating it. We can see this style in the mysterious wayfarer who dialogues with the disciples headed to Emmaus, after the tragedy that took place at Golgotha. The Risen Jesus speaks to them with the heart, accompanying the journey of their suffering with respect, proposing Himself and not imposing Himself, lovingly opening their minds to understand the profound meaning of what had happened. Indeed, they can joyfully exclaim that their hearts burned within them as He spoke to them on the road and explained the Scriptures to them (cf. Luke 24:32).

In a historical period marked by polarizations and contrasts — to which unfortunately not even the ecclesial community is immune — the commitment to communicating “with open heart and arms” does not pertain exclusively to those in the field of communications; it is everyone’s responsibility. We are all called to seek and to speak the truth and to do so with charity. We Christians in particular are continually urged to keep our tongue from evil (cf. Psalm 34:13), because as Scripture teaches us, with the same tongue we can bless the Lord and curse men and women who were made in the likeness of God (cf. James 3:9). No evil word should come from our mouths, but rather “only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear” (Ephesians 4:29).

Sometimes friendly conversations can open a breach even in the most hardened of hearts. We also have evidence of this in literature. I am thinking of that memorable page in Chapter XXI of The Betrothed in which Lucia speaks with the heart to the Innominato [the Unnamed] until he, disarmed and afflicted by a healthy inner crisis, gives in to the gentle strength of love. We experience this in society, where kindness is not only a question of “etiquette” but a genuine antidote to cruelty, which unfortunately can poison hearts and make relationships toxic. We need it in the field of media, so that communication does not foment acrimony that exasperates, creates rage and leads to clashes, but helps people peacefully reflect and interpret with a critical yet always respectful spirit, the reality in which they live.

Communicating heart to heart: “In order to speak well, it is enough to love well”

One of the brightest and still fascinating examples of “speaking with the heart” is offered by Saint Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church, whom I wrote about in the Apostolic Letter, Totum Amoris Est, 400 years after his death. In addition to this important anniversary, I would like to mention another anniversary that takes place in 2023: the centenary of his proclamation as patron of Catholic journalists by Pius XI with the Encyclical, Rerum Omnium Perturbationem. A brilliant intellectual, fruitful writer and profound theologian, Francis de Sales was Bishop of Geneva at the beginning of the XVII century during difficult years marked by heated disputes with Calvinists. 

His meek attitude, humanity and willingness to dialogue patiently with everyone, especially with those who disagreed with him, made him an extraordinary witness of God’s merciful love. One could say about him: “A pleasant voice multiplies friends, and a gracious tongue multiplies courtesies” ( Sirach 6:5). After all, one of his most famous statements, “heart speaks to heart”, inspired generations of faithful, among them Saint John Henry Newman, who chose it as his motto, Cor ad cor loquitur. One of his convictions was, “In order to speak well, it is enough to love well”. It shows that for him communication should never be reduced to something artificial, to a marketing strategy, as we might say nowadays, but is rather a reflection of the soul, the visible surface of a nucleus of love that is invisible to the eye. For Saint Francis de Sales, precisely “in the heart and through the heart, there comes about a subtle, intense and unifying process in which we come to know God”. [2] By “loving well”, Saint Francis succeeded in communicating with Martin, the deaf-mute, becoming his friend. This is why he is also known as the protector of people with impairments in communicating.

It is from this “criterion of love” that, through his writings and witness of life, the saintly Bishop of Geneva reminds us that “we are what we communicate.” This goes against the grain today, at a time when — as we experience especially on social media — communication is often exploited so that the world may see us as we would like to be and not as we are. Saint Francis de Sales disseminated many copies of his writings among the Geneva community. This “journalistic” intuition earned him a reputation that quickly went beyond the confines of his diocese and still endures to this day. His writings, Saint Paul VI observed, provide for a “highly enjoyable, instructive and moving” reading. [3] If we look today at the field of communications, are these not precisely the characteristics that an article, a report, a television or radio programme or a social media post should include? May people who work in communications feel inspired by this Saint of tenderness, seeking and telling the truth with courage and freedom and rejecting the temptation to use sensational and combative expressions.

Speaking with the heart in the synodal process

As I have emphasised, “In the Church, too, there is a great need to listen to and to hear one another. It is the most precious and life-giving gift we can offer each other.” [4] Listening without prejudice, attentively and openly, gives rise to speaking according to God’s style, nurtured by closeness, compassion and tenderness. We have a pressing need in the Church for communication that kindles hearts, that is balm on wounds and that shines light on the journey of our brothers and sisters. I dream of an ecclesial communication that knows how to let itself be guided by the Holy Spirit, gentle and at the same time, prophetic, that knows how to find new ways and means for the wonderful proclamation it is called to deliver in the third millennium. A communication which puts the relationship with God and one’s neighbour, especially the neediest, at the centre and which knows how to light the fire of faith rather than preserve the ashes of a self-referential identity. A form of communication founded on humility in listening and parrhesia in speaking, which never separates truth from charity.

Disarming souls by promoting a language of peace

“A soft tongue will break a bone”, says the Book of Proverbs (25:15). Today more than ever, speaking with the heart is essential to foster a culture of peace in places where there is war; to open paths that allow for dialogue and reconciliation in places where hatred and enmity rage. In the dramatic context of the global conflict we are experiencing, it is urgent to maintain a form of communication that is not hostile. It is necessary to overcome the tendency to “discredit and insult opponents from the outset [rather] than to open a respectful dialogue.” [5] We need communicators who are open to dialogue, engaged in promoting integral disarmament and committed to undoing the belligerent psychosis that nests in our hearts, as Saint John XXIII prophetically urged in the Encyclical Pacem In Terris: “True peace can only be built in mutual trust” (No. 113). A trust which has no need of sheltered or closed communicators but bold and creative ones who are ready to take risks to find common ground on which to meet. As was the case sixty years ago, we are now also living in a dark hour in which humanity fears an escalation of war that must be stopped as soon as possible, also at the level of communication. It is terrifying to hear how easily words calling for the destruction of people and territories are spoken. Words, unfortunately, that often turn into warlike actions of heinous violence. This is why all belligerent rhetoric must be rejected, as well as every form of propaganda that manipulates the truth, disfiguring it for ideological ends. Instead, what must be promoted is a form of communication that helps create the conditions to resolve controversies between peoples.

As Christians, we know that the destiny of peace is decided by conversion of hearts, since the virus of war comes from within the human heart. [6] From the heart come the right words to dispel the shadows of a closed and divided world and to build a civilization which is better than the one we have received. Each of us is asked to engage in this effort, but it is one that especially appeals to the sense of responsibility of those working in the field of communications so that they may carry out their profession as a mission.

May the Lord Jesus, the pure Word poured out from the heart of the Father, help us to make our communication clear, open and heartfelt.

May the Lord Jesus, the Word made flesh, help us listen to the beating of hearts, to rediscover ourselves as brothers and sisters, and to disarm the hostility that divides.

May the Lord Jesus, the Word of truth and love, help us speak the truth in charity, so that we may feel like protectors of one another.

Rome, Saint John Lateran, 24 January 2023, Memorial of Saint Francis de Sales.

 FRANCISCUS

[1] Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est (25 December 2005), 31.

[2] Apostolic Letter Totum Amoris Est (28 December 2022).

[3] Cf. Apostolic Epistle Sabaudiae Gemma, on the IV Centennial of the Birth of Saint Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church (29 January 1967).

[4] Message for the LVI World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2022).

[5] Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 201.

[6] Cf. Message for the 56th World Day of Peace (1 January 2023).

The post Pope Francis Explains The Art of Communicating Cordially appeared first on ZENIT - English.

(ZENIT News / Utrecht, Holland, 27.09.2022).- Given its interest, clarity and currency, we offer the analytical opinion article of the Archbishop of Utrecht, Cardinal Willem Jacobus Eijk, Primate of the Netherlands, on the “Liturgy of Blessing” for homosexual couples promoted by the Bishops of Belgium’s Flemish region.

* * *

Belgium’s Flemish Bishops surprised many inside and outside the Church with their statement, published on September 20, 2022, entitled “To Be Close Pastorally to Homosexuals: For a Welcoming Church that Excludes No One.” For Catholics that accept the Church’s teachings, this was in no way an agreeable surprise. In fact, in the mentioned statement, the Flemish Bishops offer the possibility of a blessing to same sex couples in a lasting and monogamous relationship. 

They also offer a model for the celebration of the Word and a prayer in which same sex couples can be blessed. Here is their scheme: 

-Opening Word

-Opening Prayer

-Scripture Reading

-Expression of commitment between both parties, manifesting their mutual bond before God. This can be done, for example, in the following terms: 

“God of love and fidelity, we are before You today surrounded by members of our family and friends. We thank You that we were able to meet. We want to be there for others in all circumstances of life. We express with confidence that we want to work for the happiness of the other, day after day. Let us pray: grant us the strength to remain faithful to one another and to deepen our commitment. We trust in your closeness, we want to live by your Word, and give ourselves to the good.” 

-Then the community prayer follows in which, the Flemish Bishops say, God is asked to act in the couple; it is the grace that enables them to take care of one another mutually and the community in general. There is also an example of this prayer:

“God and Father, today we surround N. and N. with our prayers. You know their heart and the path they will follow together henceforth. Make their commitment with the other to be strong and faithful. May their home be full of understanding, tolerance and care. May there be room for reconciliation and peace. Give us the strength to walk with them, together in the footprints of your Son and strengthened by the Spirit.” 

-Intercessions

-Our Father

-Final Prayer

-Blessing

It is the first time that an Episcopal Conference (or part of it) issues a statement in which the example is given of the celebration of the Word and the Prayer to bless a same sex couple. The Flemish Bishops took the notable step to allow the blessing of same sex couples based on their interpretation of certain passages of Amors Laetitia (AL), the Post-Synodal Exhortation issued by Pope Francis after the two Synods on the Family of 2014 and 2015 respectively. In it, Pope Francis affirms , among other things, “that every person, regardless of his sexual orientation, must be respected in his dignity and welcomed with respect” (AL 250). 

To distinguish, accompany and integrate continue being the principal key words of Amoris Laetitia  (Chapter 8), according to the Flemish Bishops. It goes without saying  that people with a homosexual orientation must be treated with respect and have the right to pastoral care and guidance (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358-2359). Understood as discernment, however, in Amoris Laetita is that people in an irregular relationship be led to understand the truth about their relationship (AL 300). In sum, that they be able to understand that their relationship is contrary to the order of God’s creation and, hence, is morally unacceptable. Integration means to give people in an irregular situation  — in so far as possible — a place in the life of the  Church. Needless to say, people in a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex are welcome in ecclesiastical celebrations, although they cannot go to Communion or take part actively in the celebration. 

The Flemish Bishops’ statement  on the blessing of same sex couples meets with several inherent objections:

• Blessings are sacramentals, not Sacraments. The Flemish Bishops also state explicitly that the blessing of same sex couples is not a marriage. Sacramentals, instead, are sacred signs that are like the Sacraments in a certain sense and which bear particularly spiritual fruits in the people that receive the blessings, preparing them to receive the principal effect of the Sacraments. Sacramentals also sanctify particular situations of life (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a doubt on the blessing of same sex unions, February 22, 2021). Sacramentals are up to a certain point analogous to the Sacraments. The prayer of declaration, in which same sex couples commit themselves to one another, shows an unmistakable analogy with the “yes” that a man and a woman say to each other during the marriage ceremony. In it, in fact, the same sex couple prays: “We want to be for one another in all the circumstances of life . . . Give us the strength to continue being faithful to one another to deepen our commitment.” We also find this analogy with the “yes” of spouses in the marriage ceremony in the community prayer: “Make their mutual commitment strong and faithful.” Hence, the fear isn’t unfounded that the transition of this blessing to marriage between people of the same sex is not a great step and will be possible in the near future.

• A blessing does not only imply a good intention on the part of one who receives it. What is blessed must also correspond to God’s order of creation. God created marriage as a total and mutual gift of the man and the woman to one another, which culminates in procreation (Gaudium et Spes, No. 48; cf. No. 50). Sexual relations between same sex persons cannot in themselves lead to procreation. Hence, they cannot be an authentic expression on the corporal plane of the total self-giving of the man and woman, which marriage is essentially. Situations that are objectively evil from the moral point of view cannot be blessed. God’s grace does not shine on the path of sin. Spiritual fruit cannot be cultivated by blessing relations that are contrary to the order of God’s creation (Ibid.). This, of course, does not hinder homosexual individuals from receiving a blessing. However, it’s not morally permissible to bless a homosexual relationship as such.

• The arguments of points 1 and 2 are mentioned in the answers given by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on February 22, 2021, to a question on the blessing of homosexual relations. But, with their statement permitting the blessing of same sex couples, the Flemish Bishops go against the mentioned statement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Flemish Bishops are also obliged to comply with it. 

• In the prayer of the community on the occasion of the blessing of homosexual couples, said the Flemish Bishops, the community prays “so that God’s grace will act” in the gay couple and enable them to take care of each other mutually and the community in general. However, we cannot pray for God’s grace to act in a relationship that is not in keeping to His order of creation. The Flemish Bishops do not say explicitly that relations between same sex persons are justifiable. However, even the wording of the community prayer in their liturgical model for the blessing of homosexual couples suggests that relations between same sex persons can be morally justified. In fact, at the end, it states: “Give us the strength to walk with them together in the footprints of your Son and strengthened by the Spirit.” Do same sex people in their relationship with the same sex follow Christ’s steps? And, do the Flemish Bishops believe that in their relationship same sex couples follow Christ’s steps? In the prayer of the model, the gay couple says: “We want to live by your Word.” But the Word of God contained in the Scriptures qualifies unequivocally and undeniably homosexual relations as a sin. At least, in the formulation of model prayers for the gay couple and the community, the risk is run that the average Catholic, who in general knows very little about his faith today, lets himself be led on the evil way and begins to think that lasting and monogamous sexual relations between same sex people are morally acceptable. 

• If homosexual couples with lasting and monogamous sexual relations can receive a blessing, should not the same thing be possible in the monogamous and lasting sexual relations of a man and a woman who live together without being married? To permit the blessing of homosexual couples poses the great risk of undermining blessings and the teaching of the Church on the morality of marriage and sexual ethics. 

The Flemish Bishops’ statement, in which they permit same sex couples and even offer a liturgical model for it, meets with intrinsic ethical objections, radically contradicts a recent sentence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and poses the risk of leading Catholics to points of view on the morality of relations between same sex people that are contrary to the teaching of the Church. Hence, Catholics who accept the Doctrine of the Church, also in the matter of sexual morality, hope fervently that the Flemish Bishops may receive soon a petition from competent ecclesiastical circles to withdraw their statement and comply with it.

The author of the article is the Archbishop of Utrecht, Holland. Translation of the original by ZENIT.

The post Blessing of Homosexual Couples: Five Reasons Why the Flemish Bishops Must Be Stopped appeared first on ZENIT - English.

It’s not a new instruction or a directory with specific norms, but a meditation to understand the beauty of the Liturgical Celebration and its role in evangelization. And the Pontiff ends with an appeal: “Let us abandon controversy to listen together to what the Spirit says to the Church; let us preserve communion, and continue to be amazed by the beauty of the Liturgy” (65). 

Pope Francis writes, the Christian faith is either an encounter with Jesus alive or it is not. And “the Liturgy guarantees us the possibility of that encounter. We do not need a vague remembrance of the Last Supper: we need to be present in that Supper.” Recalling the importance of Vatican II’s Constitution “Sacrosanctum Concilium, which led to the rediscovery of the theological understanding of the Liturgy, the Pontiff adds: “I would like the beauty of the Christian Celebration, and its necessary consequences in the life of the Church, not to be disfigured by a superficial and reductive understanding of its value or, still worse, by its instrumentalization at the service of an ideological vision, no matter what it is” (16). 

After having warned against the “spiritual worldliness,” Gnosticism and Neo-Pelagianism that fuel it, the Holy Father explains that “to take part in the Eucharistic Sacrifice is not one of our conquests, as if we could presume to it before God and our brethren, and that “the Liturgy has nothing to do with an aesthetic moralism: it is the gift of the Lord’s Passover that, accepted with docility, makes our life new.” 

One doesn’t enter the Cenacle but by the power of attraction of one’s desire to eat the Passover with us” (20). To cure spiritual worldliness it’s necessary to rediscover  the beauty of the Liturgy; however, this rediscovery “is not the search of a ritual aestheticism, which takes pleasure only in the care of the external formality of the Rite, or is satisfied with a scrupulous observance of the rubric. Evidently, this affirmation does not approve at all the contrary attitude, which confuses simplicity with a bungling banality, the essential with an ignorant superficiality, the concretion of the ritual action with an exaggerated practical functionalism” (22).

The Pope explains that “all the aspects of the Celebration must be taken care of (the space, the time, the gestures, the words, the objects, clothing, singing, music, . . .) and all the rubrics observed: this care would be sufficient not to rob the assembly what is due to it, namely, the Paschal Mystery celebrated in the ritual form established by the Church. However, even of the quality and norm of the celebratory action were guaranteed, this would not be sufficient for our participation to be full” (23). In fact, if “astonishment is lacking for the Paschal Mystery” present “in the concretion of the sacramental signs, we could run the risk  of being truly impermeable to the ocean of grace that inundates each Celebration” (24). This astonishment, clarifies Pope Francis, has nothing to do “with the smoky expression ‘sense of the mystery’: sometimes among the alleged accusations against the Liturgical reform is also that of having eliminated it from the Celebration.” The astonishment of which the Pope speaks is not a sort of disconcert in face of an obscure reality or an enigmatic rite, but it is “on the contrary, astonishment in face of the fact that God’s salvific plan was revealed to us in Jesus’ Passover” (25).

How, then, can we recover the capacity to live the liturgical action in its fulness? In face of the disconcert of post-modernity, individualism, subjectivism and abstract spiritualism, the Pontiff invites us to return to the great Conciliar Constitutions, which cannot be separated from one another. And he writes  that “it would be banal to read the tensions, unfortunately present in regard to the Celebration, as a simple divergence among different sensibilities towards a ritual form. The problem is first of all ecclesiological” (31). In short, hidden behind the battles over the ritual are different conceptions of the Church. The Pontiff points out that that one cannot acknowledge the validity of the Council  and not accept the Liturgical Reform born of “Sacrosanctum Concilium.”

Quoting theologian Romano Guardini, very present in the Apostolic Letter, Pope Francis affirms that, without liturgical formation, “the reforms in the rite and in the text do not help much” (34). He stresses the importance of formation, in the first place, in the seminaries: “A liturgical-sapiential focus  of theological formation in the seminaries would certainly also have positive effects on pastoral action. There is no aspect of ecclesial life that does not find its culmination and its source in it. Joint pastoral ministry, organic and integrated, more than being the result of elaborated programs, is the consequence of situating the Sunday Eucharistic Celebration, foundation of communion, at the center of the life of the community. The theological understanding of the Liturgy does not allow at all to understand these words as if everything were reduced to the cultural aspect. A Celebration that does not evangelize is not authentic, as a proclamation isn’t that does not lead to the encounter with the Risen Lord in the Celebration. Hence, without the witness of charity, both are as a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.”

It is important to educated in the understanding of the symbols, which is ever more difficult for modern man, continues the Pope. One way of doing it “is, without a doubt, to take care of the art of the Celebration,” which “cannot be reduced to the mere observance of a rubric device, nor can it be thought of as imaginative creativity — at times wild — without rules.” The Rite is a norm in itself and the norm is never an end in itself, but is always at the service  of the superior reality it intends to safeguard” (48). The art of celebrating isn’t learned “because one attends a course of oratory or of techniques of persuasive communication,” rather, it requires “a diligent dedication to the Celebration, letting the Celebration itself transmit its art to us” (50). And “among the ritual gestures proper to every assembly, silence occupies a place of absolute importance,” which “moves to repentance and the desire of conversion; arouses the desire of conversion,” arouses listening to the Word and prayer, readies for Adoration of the Body and Blood of Christ” (52). 

Pope Francis then notes that the way of living the Celebration in Christian communities “is conditioned –for good or, unfortunately, also for evil–, by the way in which its Pastor presides over the assembly.” And he enumerates several “models” of inadequate presidency, although they are opposite signs: “austere rigidity or exasperated creativity; spiritualizing mysticism or practical functionalism; precipitated speed or accentuated slowness; scruffy carelessness or excessive refinement; superabundant affability or hieratic impassibility. All models that have the same root: “an exasperated personalism of celebratory style that sometimes expresses a badly dissimulated leadership mania” (54), amplified when the Celebrations are spread over the network. Whereas, to “preside over the Eucharist is to submerge oneself in the furnace of God’s love. When we are given to understand, or even intuit this reality, we certainly no longer need a directory that imposes on us an appropriate behaviour” (57). 

The Hoy Father ends the Letter appealing “to all the Bishops, priests and deacons, to formators of seminaries, to Professors in Faculties of Theology and Schools of Theology and to all professors and catechists, to help the Holy People of God to draw from what has always been the primary source of Christian spirituality,” reaffirming what was established in “Traditionis Custodes,” so that the Church elevates, in the variety of languages, a unique and identical prayer capable of expressing her unity” and this unique prayer is the Roman Rite, which arose from the Conciliar Reform and was established by the holy Pontiffs Paul Vi and John Paul II.

The translation from the original Italian to Spanish is by Father Jorge Enrique Mújica, LC, Editorial Director of ZENIT, and to English by Virginia M. Forrester

The post Summary of the Pope’s Apostolic Letter “Desiderio Desideravi” on the Liturgy One Year After “Traditionis Custodes” appeared first on ZENIT - English.