There is little doubt that the Fiducia supplicans declaration will soon be seen as a sine qua non of ecclesial communion; and the priests will be in the spotlight. The most common “oiled” practice is to use priestly meetings to call priests into fellowship with the church and in the presbytery. It is the easiest way because it has the double advantage of not having to be too exposed to notes or public statements from the Curia and of making optimal use of people's tendency to adapt. On closer inspection, however, it may also be the bishops who are not a little concerned about this new declaration.
But let's go one step at a time. For the reasons already explained (see here), the pastoral choice set out in the declaration is inadmissible, it becomes important to understand in more detail what pastoral choice is involved. Fernández himself explains it in the presentation: “The value of this document (…) is to make a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of the blessing.” At number 41 points out the limitations of the declaration: “What in this declaration “What is said about the blessing of same-sex couples is sufficient to guide the careful and fatherly discernment of ordained ministers in this regard” (our italics).
Therefore, the document does not provide a consistent line, but leaves it to the “prudent and fatherly judgment” of ministers to consider what to do. In fact, Fernández expressly excludes the possibility that a bishop in his own diocese or even an entire bishops' conference can issue regulatory lines: “In addition to the indications mentioned above, we must not therefore wait for other answers on possible ways to regulate details or practical aspects.” Blessings of this kind” (No. 41). In fact, the entire document focuses on the fact that the “pastoral” or ritual blessing – a new invention of Fernández – must be seen as “simple”, “spontaneous”, arising from popular piety and not from the liturgy. Therefore, any attempt at ritualization, formalization or normativity must be rejected (cf. No. 37).
These considerations allow us to reach a first point: The declaration is placed in a dimension of pastoral prudence and therefore cannot require approval on the basis of the authentic Magisterium. The dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium states: “This religious bond of will and intelligence must be paid special tribute to the authentic magisterium of the Pope of Rome (…) so that his supreme magisterium and the judgments he makes are received with reverence. “sincerely endorse the proposals, according to his disposition and intention, which is particularly evident both in the nature of the documents and in the frequent re-presentation of the same doctrine and in the tenor of the oral expression” (No. 25, our italics). From the italics, you can see how the authentic Magisterium focuses on “pure” doctrines, or those contained within the discipline of the Church, rather than on wise guidelines. The latter corresponds to a supervisory stance, which may therefore differ in its actual application. On a case by case basis. It is the law of discernment that this pontificate wanted to venture into: this document cannot therefore impose on any priest to bless these couples, because the ultimate reference point is the wise discernment of the priest.
We do not wish to argue here that the “openness” of the declaration has no doctrinal implications: We already explained it yesterday and showed the importance of the Church's sacramentals. The point is that the nature of consent to the declaration cannot go beyond the content of the declaration itself. It is one of the elementary criteria for text interpretation. If Fernández wanted to penetrate the doctrinal sphere, he would have to show that what he is calling for is not doctrinally contradictory to the Responsum 2021. But he knows very well that the conflict is obvious, so much so that “spontaneous blessings” had to be invented, because the responsum clearly states that the blessing is considered a sacramental blessing (which is the only blessing that a priest of the church considers Pastor can grant) cannot be given to an irregular or same-sex couple. A prohibition that arises from the nature of the blessing and not from the simple fact that it can be externally confused with a wedding blessing.
We point out other important details that sufficiently indicate that Tucho's arrival in the Dicastery is a kind of coup to overthrow the bishops and degrade them to simple vicars of the Francis Fernández diarchy. The reader may notice that the statement in the presentation quotes the Apostolic Constitution Prædicate Evangel (II. 1): “The Roman Curia is primarily an instrument of service for the Successor of Peter.” However, as is his wont, the Prefect abbreviates , the quote and omits the continuation, which reminds us that the Church and the leadership of the Church do not end with the Successor of Peter: “to help him in his mission to be “forever and ever” visible principle and foundation of the “Unity both of the bishops and of the multitude of the faithful”, for the benefit also of the bishops, the particular churches, the episcopal conferences and their regional and continental unions, the eastern hierarchical structures and other institutions and communities in the Church”.
It would be nice to know if Fernández would keep that unity and utility in mind. On such an issue, the minimum wage is that Tucho takes the time to consult the world episcopate; We would like to recall that this also consists of bishops from the African continent, Polish, Hungarian and American bishops. Maybe someone would have had something to say; which would certainly have made a great contribution to strengthening parrhesia in the church.
But there is another aspect that is even more importanthighlighted by Ed Condon in The Pillar: The Pope and the Prefect wanted to “prevent the bishops themselves from bringing clarity and order to implementation.” [della Dichiarazione] in their dioceses,” as quoted in No. 41 above. The problem is particularly serious because the declaration enters the regulatory area, which is the responsibility of each bishop in his own diocese, but which now cannot regulate anything, neither good nor bad, because the blessings must be “simple.” , not regulated, not ritualized. “Indeed,” Condon adds, “the DDF appears to have declared with papal authority that priests are free to exercise “practical judgment” in the application of fiducia supplicans, without any regulation or oversight by their own bishops.” Chaos with no possibility of intervention.
And this is not the first sign of Francis' desire to increasingly restrict episcopal authority. The Synod had already sent a strong and clear signal by making bishops and cardinals subject to the “intermediaries” and giving the possibility of intervention and the right to vote equal to those of the laity. Even the continuous “dismissal” of bishops from their sees without regular procedure says a lot about how much this Pope values the episcopate and puts the teachings of the Second Vatican Council under his feet. Perhaps an episcopate should have the courage to remind the Pope of this.