Posted on 12/23/2023 12:38:34 PM PST by ebb tide
The Catholic Church has always had blessings for people and items. Blessings for people are usually for individuals, but occasionally a priest may bless groups living in a vocation designed by God (like a family.) Blessings for items can be anything from a vehicle to a crucifix.
But there is a new heretical document from Cdl. Fernandez that reads: “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.” (emphasis mine.)
Catholic News Agency has an article titled “U.S diocese respond to Vatican declaration on same-sex couple blessings.” The article interviews Bishop Andrew Cozzens of Diocese of Crookston, Minnesota and Cardinal Seán O’Malley of the Archdiocese of Boston and Cardinal Blase Cupich of the Archdiocese of Chicago.
In the article, Bishop Cozzens thankfully referred to marriage as existing between a man and a woman. He also mentioned “repentance and conversion” for those who wish to follow Christ in discipleship. This is also good. But then he said, “Although it is impossible for us to bless a same-sex union, since any sexual union outside of the marriage of one man and one woman is contrary to the Gospel, we may bless individuals who are not yet living in full accord with the Gospel, even those in a same-sex union.”
This doesn’t make any sense. If the only thing Bishop Cozzens meant to say to CNA was “We priests and bishops can obviously bless anybody,” then he should have said, “We priests and bishops can obviously bless anybody,” and left it at that. But he didn’t.
So, we must ask: Why would Bp. Cozzens write about the blessing of someone who struggles with same-sex attraction as a blessing for someone “in a same-sex union” if that person were actually struggling for chastity? In fact, why would it matter if the recipient of the blessing were not aiming for chastity if we priests can actually bless any person or any object? I assume this is because the bishop wants to defend the heretical paragraph 31 above from the Vatican website calling for “the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex” while still not going full-bore heresy like Cdl. Fernandez.
He must have forgotten that the traditional Magisterium of the Catholic Church states that making any “defense of the ill done” makes one an accessory to another’s sin, including heresy. And yes, paragraph 31 is a heresy, encouraging “blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex.”
Would any US bishop approve of a child-trafficker and an abused-child being blessed together or separate by a priest as long as there were some amorphous pledge of future “repentance and conversion” on the part of the sex-trafficker? Of course not. Especially if the trafficker identified trafficking as the impetus for the actual request of the priest’s blessing. No, that person obviously needs to go to the confessional, not receive “a blessing.”
I recently heard a woman my age speak on the FOCUS YouTube about how she has struggled her whole life with same-sex attraction. But she said she doesn’t like to be pigeonholed into that sin when there is so much more to the story of her falls and redemption than just that one thing. In fact, she said something very beautiful and powerful on that topic of same-sex attraction: “Satan calls you by your sin. Jesus calls you by your name.” Translated into today’s topic: Why do we have to talk about blessing chaste Catholics “with same-sex attraction” if we really believe they are first sons and daughters of God?
Why would so many American priests and bishops play into the Vatican’s insistence that we call same-sex attracted people by their sin as we priests approach them to bless them? Why approach any Catholic based on their struggles instead of their baptismal identity? I suspect it is because many don’t believe in sin or redemption by the blood of Jesus.
But a few do, and even they seem woefully ignorant of the fact that a change in the practice of the blessings of the Catholic Church will immediately effect a change in the lifestyle of the baptized. In other words, “gay civil-union” blessings will most certainly lead to “gay marriages” in mainstream liberal parishes. This happens practically, whether or not certain hand-wringing bishops want to see this happen doctrinally, or not.
All in all, I think we see that the Vatican-document linked at the top of this article is [barely] more honest than the so-called “conservative” bishops who will play word-games in their dioceses simply to avoid falling into the denotation of heresy or fall short of doing damage-control for the Vatican. But we will all answer for our denotation and connotation. This is something the first century Pharisees probably didn’t realize until their condemnation.
Some bishops of the United States would rather defend the blessing of mortal sin than admit the obvious, namely, that heresy is currently being produced in such documents. In fact, many US bishops would apparently either remain silent or bless one of the four major sins that cries out to heaven for vengeance than simply indicate the commandeering that happened in the Vatican in 2013. This evil has led to the destruction of souls—vulnerable souls struggling with certain disorders who were redeemed by the blood of Christ, yet may be unable to attain it as they are deceived by imposters who pose as shepherds.
Someone in the hierarchy needs to finally stop this madness by beginning an honest appraisal of the canonical crimes that happened in Rome during 2012 and 2013. Nothing will get fixed until that happens. And that admission of duress in Pope Benedict XVI’s putative-resignation will also provide the lynchpin to all these heretical documents that no one needs to defend.
Tucho, aka "Heal Me with your Mouth"
Cardinal Fernández attempts to further mislead (gaslighting) his audience by inventing the hypocritical distinction between homosexual “couple” and “union”: “Couples are blessed. The union is not blessed.”
Talking to PillarCatholic.com (December 22), he gave the impression that the “blessing” was for “two very close friends who share good things”, even if they have sinned homosexually. Fernández “often” met such couples, who are sometimes “exemplary”.
The blessing can be given “even if there is some kind of [homo]sexual relationship”. The blessing, he said, would allegedly “not validate or justify anything”.
About the German de facto schism [which wants the same thing as he does], Fernández said: “Some bishops have gone ahead with ritualized forms of blessing irregular couples, and this is inadmissible. They should reformulate their proposal in this regard.” He is “planning a trip to Germany to have some conversations that I believe are important”.
Fernández reacted with mockery to the strong opposition of African bishops: “Prudence and attention to the local culture could allow different ways of application, but not a total denial of this step required of priests.”
He went on with derision: “I well understand the concern of the bishops in some African or Asian countries, in places where being homosexual might put you in prison. It is an affront to human dignity that certainly distresses the bishops, and challenges them in their fatherhood. It is likely that the bishops do not want to expose homosexual persons to violence. They themselves refer [however consenting!] to the ‘legislation’ of their countries.”
Finally, Fernández’ came up with wishful thinking: “I want to go to Heaven and be very happy with God eternally.”
Someone in the hierarchy needs to finally stop this madness by beginning an honest appraisal of the canonical crimes that happened in Rome during 2012 and 2013. Nothing will get fixed until that happens. And that admission of duress in Pope Benedict XVI’s putative-resignation will also provide the lynchpin to all these heretical documents that no one needs to defend.
Those first century Pharissees were just as happy to bless a collection plate full of silver as the management of the current Holy Roman cabal is. This current urge to bless queerness has the stink of large money feeding the desire to have deviance sanctioned by the church. Nothing new. Funny it’s making the news. The local Monkery will go on making, packing, and selling the fudge they pedal to finance their operation.
Gay and irregular couples who want a blessing, fall into the same group as dogs, rats and crocodiles.....Animals are also blessed...no Mass or family or friends,no big to do at the church....JUST A BLESSING.....Wonder if dogs and cats feel different after being given the blessing by the priest??????
Could it be that they are working their way to blessing:
Abortionists?
Pedophiles?
Sodom & Gomorrah?
Abortion Drugs?
Trannies?
See what happens after 1,000+ years of praying to dead “saints”? And following people who ain’t?
"Can the Catholic Church Remove a Pope? The short answer is no. There are no provisions in canon law for the involuntary removal of a pope. The pope cannot be impeached or recalled. However, there are some limited ways a pope’s reign can end prematurely:
Resignation
Death
Declaring the Pope Mentally Incapacitated
Heresy
Overall, the pope has enormous protections from being involuntarily removed. As the Vicar of Christ, he occupies an unparalleled position of power and authority in the Catholic Church. Barring resignation, death, incapacitation, or apostasy, a pope cannot be forcibly stripped of his status once elevated to the papacy. This provides stability for the Church but also means a pope must act with wisdom and restraint, as there are limited options for his early removal if he strays from his mandate."
Could Francis be removed while he's alive if found guilty of heresy? What the article doesn't say is what is the vehicle/office/body/canon-law would be used to remove a Pope for heresy.
Re:https://onepeterfive.com/deposing-popes-historical-review/
The following excerpt from the above cited article/website suggests, if not outright declares, that canon-law provides no means to remove a heretical Pope.
1917 Code Canon Law (1917). In 1903, Pope St. Pius X ordered the creation of a new and definitive canon law for the whole Church. It was completed and promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in 1917 and came into effect on Pentecost 1918. It is traditionally referred to as the “Pio-Benedictine Code of 1917” or just the “1917 Code of Canon Law.” For our purposes, the most important part of the Code is canon 1556, which states, “The First See is judged by no one.” This language is quite similar to the Decretum Gratiani, which stated that the pope “should be judged by no one.” However – and this is a big “however” – no qualifier is added to this canon, no mention of “deviating from the faith” or heresy or any other reason. In effect, the Law of the Church now admitted no exemptions to the supreme authority of the pope and no way to judge him.
Dog and cats aren’t unrepentant sinners living in a state of mortal sin.
Nonsense. Everyone can get blessed. Things used by people can be blessed if they are good. For example, Fishing boats can be blessed, because they are used to get fish to feed people.
but boats known to be used for smuggling should not be blessed
Gays can go to church and be blessed but asking the priest to bless a sinful relationship is wrong. The document is deliberately confusing about this and confusion is being exploited by the gay European bishops. This is deliberate.
As for Africa...this shows the ignorance of the Vatican, because it would bless polygamy also. And appearing to approve of gays undermines the church there because African culture is family oriented
Sin and disordered inclinations can never be blessed or condoned, the US branch of the "Confraternity of Catholic Clergy", which represents more than 500 clergy, said in a 22 December statement.
Even the appearance of approving a moral evil must be avoided at all costs, otherwise the one who gives the 'blessing' becomes a formal collaborator with evil, the priests wrote.
Blessing a couple, whether they live in a normal or homosexual concubinage, gives the impression "that their relationship is acceptable in the eyes of the Church, which it is not".
A priest is not allowed to bless immoral or disordered behaviour such as abortion, pornography, marital infidelity, child abuse and terrorism, the statement reads.
The Australian and British confraternities have issued similar statements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.