The content of the answers (downloadable here) of the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith to some questions raised on July 14 of this year by the Bishop of Santo Amaro (Brazil), Msgr. José Negri, is further evidence of his will to follow his own path to go, which unfortunately does not agree with that of the Catholic Church. Essentially, it would be no problem for Cardinal Fernández, with the Pope’s approval, to baptize transgender or homosexual people living together or to allow them to act as godparents or witnesses at a wedding. The only precaution would be “not to cause public scandal or disorientation among the believers.”
The response was signed by the Pope on October 31, 2023, written on plain white sheets of paper without heading and without mentioning the text of Msgr. Negri provides the most obvious answers that should be given when considering the teaching of the Church and canon law. This means that baptism can only be administered to an adult if he is duly prepared in his profession of faith and moral life. It is called “Catechumenate” and is not a course of formation that awards a diploma when two thirds of the classes are attended, but a serious path in which the person is accompanied so that he acquires the willingness to cooperate with the grace that he wants to receive . It is therefore a proven fact that baptism must be postponed if there is no will to break with a life of sin.
The other question concerns the role of the godfather or godmother. The tin. 874 – In § 1 the requirements that he must fulfill are clearly stated: “He must be Catholic, he has already received Confirmation and the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist and he leads a life in accordance with the faith and the role that he will take over.” No further comment is required. However, the best man is different and may not even be a Catholic himself: his duty is simply to witness the exchange of wedding vows between the bride and groom.
Then there is the ambiguous answer to the fourth question. Monsignor Negri asked whether “two homoemotional people can act as parents of a child who needs to be baptized and who was adopted or obtained in another way, for example through a rented womb”. The answer seems to miss the point: “In order for the child to be baptized, there must be a reasonable hope that it will be raised in the Catholic religion.” But the point is not whether the child is born to two homosexual people in a common-law relationship is entrusted, may or may not be baptized, but whether those who are not parents can appear as such. And the answer can only be negative, because reality is reality: only the one who is potentially one can act as a parent; However, it is clear that at least one of the two, if not both, are not parents of the child for whom baptism is requested.
The recent response of the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith raises more than one doubt about his intellectual honesty (because none of us were convinced of his catholicity anyway). There is actually a watermark aspect in this answer that makes it clear why the bishops must rise up and demand the immediate removal of Fernández because he is clearly unable to carry out the role of prefect of the DDF: there is not a single one of them additional Franciscum quotations that do not falsify the content and do not serve to support a preconceived false thesis.
At first the answer opens like this: “The following answers essentially repeat the basic content of what this Dicastery has already said on this subject in the past.” One would expect a reference to any notes, answers, notifications, rules, letters or instructions of the Congregation on this subject . And instead? Instead, Fernández refers to a confidential note on some canonical issues related to transsexuality dated December 21, 2018, sub Secreto Pontificio. It is therefore a confidential note, the contents of which are unknown, and with which Fernández supposedly agrees “in substance”, but without ever bothering to attach a quote. This is likely to be evidence of an alleged continuity.
Only to be silent about a this time public response that the CDF itself gave in 2015, which cannot be found on his website, but in a statement dated September 1, 2015 by the Bishop of Cádiz and Ceuta, Msgr. Rafael Zornoza Boy, is quoted as having been happily recalled by LifeSiteNews. The bishop revealed the case of a transgender woman who asked to become the “godfather” of her nephew. The CDF had given a response diametrically opposed to that of Fernández: “In this context, I inform you of the impossibility of admission.” Transsexual behavior itself publicly reveals an attitude that contradicts the moral need, the problem of sexual identity to solve according to the truth of one’s own gender. Therefore, it is obvious that this person does not have the obligation to live a life in accordance with the faith and the role of the godparent (CIC, can 874 §1.3), and therefore cannot be admitted to the role of godmother. “
Let’s go back to the confidential note. According to our sources, it was actually about the possibility that a child with same-sex “parents” could be baptized. And clear principles were recalled, namely the need to verify that “there is a guarantee that after baptism the child will receive the Catholic education required by the sacrament” and “the reasonable hope that baptism will bear fruit.” . he explained the instruction on infant baptism from 1980, No. 30. The same criteria can also be found in the response of July 13, 1970 by Cardinal Franjo Seper (cf. Notitiæ, February 1971 (61), pp. 64-73). Other CDF texts forgotten by Tucho.
Tucho’s amnesia doesn’t end there. In order to claim that baptism can be received even if one’s sins are not repented of, he uses as a pretext the Summa Theologiæ (III, q. 69, a. 9), which has as much to do with it as cabbage snacks; In fact, in the article, Saint Thomas does not ask whether baptism can be administered to an unrepentant sinner, but only whether a pretext (lack of faith, disregard for the sacrament, disregard for the rite, lack of devotion, d sin) prevents the effect of the Baptism. Instead, the prefect forgets to report the only relevant text, art. 4 of question 68, in which Thomas explains that if by sinner we mean someone who has “the will to sin” and “the intention to continue in sin (…), the sacrament of baptism will not be administered should”. Thomas also pointed out that “a man must never be inclined to grace by the impression of baptismal character, as long as he manifests the will to sin” (ad. 3).
But St. Thomas isn’t the only one who’s had his collar pulled. Even Sant’Agostino had no better fate. The text quoted (Address to the Believers of the Church of Caesarea, 2, see here) simply states that the character shaped by baptism remains that of the SS. Trinity, even if those who received it adhere to the Donatist schism. He is in no way arguing that baptism should be administered to those who do not want to follow the teachings of Christ and the Church.
The final blatant and sensational violence is inflicted on a teaching by Saint John Paul II. Tucho extracts six words from a letter dated March 22, 1996, addressed to Card. William Baum and participants in the annual Internal Forum course organized by the Apostolic Penitentiary. According to Fernández, in this letter the Pope asked us to be content with a “proposal for change” that “is not fully expressed in the Penitent.” In fact, the text says exactly the opposite: it requires a “serious determination to stop engaging.” [peccati] in the future,” without which “in reality there would be no repentance”; he speaks of the “sound and generous purpose of the amendment”; and only then establishes that “in faithfulness to the intention to sin no more” the fear of new falls can still arise, which, however, “does not affect the authenticity of the intention if the will is combined with this fear, supports through prayer.”, doing everything possible to avoid feelings of guilt.” Exactly the opposite of what Fernández claims.
This has no hesitation to remove the texts from their context and use them to overthrow Catholic teaching. A shame.