At some point in my spiritual pilgrimage to the full communion of the Catholic Church from an Evangelical Protestant upbringing, it became apparent to me that the only way that I could infallibly believe the deposit of divinely revealed truth was to believe it in union with the infallible teaching of the Catholic bishops and the Pope ordained in apostolic succession. I had been looking for a guarantee, some form of certainty that what I believed was actually the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, and to my surprise I had found it in the Catholic Church. I soon recognized that there are different levels of teaching and certainty within Catholic doctrine in general, but also that it has an infallible core which is coextensive with the divine deposit of faith and morals.
Once I understood that, I found that I could believe everything in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition which the Church has defined as divinely revealed truth. I also had no problem accepting any of the Catholic truths definitively proposed as following by logical or historical necessity from Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the natural law. The only question that remained was whether I could give assent in my mind and heart to the teachings of the Catholic bishops and the Pope even when they have not proclaimed them infallibly by a definitive act. It seemed logical and necessary for all the faithful to do so. Every other option seemed to collapse into a very fallible process of deciding for myself what does and does not belong to the deposit of faith and morals, and I had no good reason to prefer or privilege my own judgment.
At the time of receiving instruction for full communion, for example, I did not see anything morally wrong with the practice of marital contraception, but then I learned that the papal magisterium in Humanae Vitae had informed the faithful that such acts were intrinsically wrong and inconsistent with a Catholic way of life. Therefore I had to decide whether to follow Humanae Vitae or my own judgment. After my wife and I discussed the matter, we stopped contracepting, and I entered the full communion of the Catholic Church, trusting for the first time that the judgment of the magisterium was more reliable than my own private judgment. Most of my Protestant friends considered me naïve and foolish for trusting the magisterium of the Catholic Church.
When Fiducia Supplicans was issued by the Dicastery (formerly Congregation) for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF or DDF) in 2023,1 I likewise assented, and this time not only my Protestant friends but also my Catholic friends considered me naïve and foolish for trusting the magisterium of the Catholic Church. Many so-called “progressives” do not like Humanae Vitae, and many so-called “conservatives” do not like Fiducia Supplicans, but the Catholic principle of assent is the same for everyone. It is necessary for Catholics in general to maintain and express support for the magisterium, especially in evangelization and catechetical contexts, where people who are sympathetic to the Catholic faith often need to gain more confidence in Catholic leadership and are seeking various reassurances and clarifications. Unfortunately, many zealous but confused Catholics nowadays think that they can evangelize effectively while manifesting little to no confidence in their bishop or the Pope. We must encourage catechumens and candidates to have an attitude of confidence toward Catholic bishops and the Pope, and we must assist all the faithful to have a religious submission (obsequium) of mind and heart to non-infallible magisterial judgments and pastoral decisions. At the same time, we must also make it clear that there is never any requirement to assent to any non-magisterial misguided personal agenda that their bishop or the Pope may have.
Catholic bishops and the Pope sometimes make errors in pastoral judgments, but in addition to their infallible level of authority and their prudential level of authority, they also exercise a non-infallible and non-prudential level of authority to which all the Catholic faithful are obligated in faith to give religious submission. This intermediate or third level of authority includes all authentic interpretations and non-revealed expositions of the deposit of faith and morals that are potentially but not actually infallible and are ordinarily taught non-infallibly by the magisterium, either universally or non-universally. In the “Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity,” for example, which must be taken upon accepting the responsibility to exercise of an office within the Catholic Church, a member of the Catholic faithful must state, “I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.” This intermediate or third level of Catholic doctrine includes all authoritative interpretations of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and natural law, found for example in the documents of Vatican II and in papal encyclicals. Even though such interpretations have not been taught infallibly, they are binding on the Catholic faithful, who are obligated to give them internal assent of the mind and heart and to prefer them to all personal judgments to the contrary. It is our Catholic duty to adhere to these teachings, for they are far more reliable than any personal or theological opinions, and because otherwise schism is inevitable. For examples of truths of the faith taught at each level of doctrine, see Ad Tuendam Fidem and the accompanying “Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei,” issued by John Paul II through the CDF in 1998.2
If we want to be certain that we have not fallen into doctrinal or moral error, and that we are believing what Christ actually revealed, then we need to accept the teaching authority of the Catholic bishops and the Pope and to follow their guidance. As St. Ignatius of Antioch told us in his letters written at the very beginning of the Church, it is the will of Christ that we all admit our own sinfulness and place ourselves under the authority of his Apostles and their successors, who like all the faithful are prone to sin and error individually but together are uniquely preserved from error in their formal teaching of the divine deposit. For our personal act of faith in Jesus Christ to be complete and reliable, we need the Catholic Church, the Catholic bishops, and the Pope, in the fullness of their authentic magisterium. If we prefer or privilege our own judgment or conscience in opposition to the authentic magisterium of the Catholic Church, then we cannot consistently claim to be fully Catholic, and we no longer have grounds for certainty that we are actually following the teachings of Christ and his Apostles. A lack of agreement with the authentic magisterium of the Church constitutes a probable doubt in every personal judgment of the content of faith and morals. Such personal judgments at odds with the authentic magisterium therefore remain objectively improbable even when they subjectively appear probable. They are improbable insofar as they contradict the authentic magisterium, regardless of whether they are made by laity, clergy, theologians, or even cardinals. Such judgments at odds with the authentic magisterium cannot be objectively trustworthy in themselves, even when they subjectively appear probable or possess credibility by virtue of the character and sincerity of the persons who make them. Even if it turns out in fact that the non-infallible magisterium was in error, it was not objectively probable for it to be in error. We should attempt to clarify this Catholic principle and apply it to Fiducia Supplicans.
Avoiding scandal as well as the appearance of giving approval to sin is always very important, and if for that reason a Catholic priest or deacon decides to grant a blessing to a couple in an irregular union separately rather than together, then he can do so, but according to Fiducia Supplicans, to bless such a couple informally is not thereby to bless their irregular union as such. Blessing an irregular union as such is never permissible, either formally or informally.3 In Fiducia Supplicans, Pope Francis is granting that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with informally blessing couples in irregular unions without first conducting a personal interrogation of their morality, but it is still true that the Church cannot bless sin as such. The informal blessing itself could and sometimes should include an explicit prayer for the couple to achieve and maintain chastity. It depends on the circumstances, but this consideration is not an exercise in situational ethics. It is appropriate and prudent for some bishops in some dioceses to regulate or prohibit the clerical practice of giving such informal blessings to couples in irregular unions, but in other dioceses such a restriction would be inappropriate and imprudent. In accord with the preceding apostolic letter Ad Theologiam Promovendam,4 Fiducia Supplicans intentionally contextualizes the decision about whether or not to give an informal blessing to a couple in an irregular union. To me, informally blessing such couples is like the annual blessing of the Bock Beer Parade that a pastor in one of the parishes in my diocese used to give. It was an informal blessing of the people drinking the beer and included a prayer that they would all use the beer temperately and avoid drunkenness and other sin. Drinking beer is a delightful good, but it can also be a near occasion of sin or an addictive behavior, and if the people asking for such a blessing are already drunk and disorderly or addicted, then it becomes scandalous to bless them. The signs of disorder must be judged on a case-by-case basis in order to decide whether an informal blessing would give the impression of an approval of sin.
Certainly a faithful Catholic could have a psychological impediment to giving assent to Fiducia Supplicans, Humanae Vitae, Dominus Iesus, or any other magisterial teaching, but he or she should seek clarification and remain docile to a proper formation of conscience in accord with the legitimate teaching authority of the Pope and the bishops in union with him. Sometimes the language of magisterial documents is ambiguous and in need of clarification, but a Catholic bishop, priest, or deacon cannot in good conscience advise the faithful to withhold their assent from a magisterial doctrine as such. In Fiducia Supplicans, it is sufficiently clear that we are being asked to assent to a development of doctrine about the nature of blessings, a development that existed even before Francis became the Roman Pontiff. It is also clear that Catholic bishops, priests, and deacons are being asked to exercise prudence and discretion in practice. They must balance the legitimate concern not to give scandal with the legitimate concern not to be rigid. Of course, some will give scandal and materially cooperate with evil in ways that seem unjust to others.
As a Catholic deacon, I can assent to Fiducia Supplicans and at the same time avoid giving blessings that in my opinion would cause scandal. I am not being asked to do anything that would violate my conscience. Not giving my internal assent or religious submission of intellect and will to the document, however, would in fact violate my conscience and open a door in my mind and heart that would eventually take me straight back to Protestantism by setting my own personal judgment above the authority of the Pope. We must never tell anyone to withhold assent from a magisterial teaching. We also must not assume that anyone who is withholding assent from such a document is in sin or schism by that very fact, but those who refuse obedience to the Pope and reject Vatican II are apparently in schism. We must pray that they will accept discipline and remain in the full communion of the Catholic Church.
It is true that the Pope could make a mistake and be in error in his non-infallible authentic magisterium, the content of which goes beyond the deposit of faith and morals and does not necessarily follow from it. He would then need to correct the error, but in the meantime we would still owe the document religious submission of intellect and will. Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired and formally inerrant (even though it contains material errors), but the non-infallible papal magisterium is not. There are essential differences between theological assent and the assent of religious submission. We are not bound to assent to non-infallible magisterial teaching in the same way as we assent to Sacred Scripture. We are bound to assent and submit to non-infallible magisterial teaching as most probable, not as totally inerrant. It can contain errors that are not merely prudential mistakes. Defenders of the living Roman Pontiff are sometimes accused of ultramontanism — the position that would hold past or present ordinary papal magisterium infallible as if it were ex cathedra proclamation or universal magisterium — but to defend ordinary papal magisterium as being authoritative and more probable than any other teaching is not to assert that it is infallible. The living Roman Pontiff is bound to pre-existing non-infallible magisterial teaching like everyone else, but he has the magisterial authority to identify and eliminate any errors in it. The perennial problem with theologians and other members of the laity and clergy who attempt to identify and eliminate errors in non-infallible magisterium is that they often end up becoming their own pope. A Roman Pontiff could materially teach heresy in his non-infallible magisterium, but even if he could also do so formally, which is very doubtful given the promise Christ made to Peter, non-infallible authentic papal magisterial teaching is still the most probable interpretation of the deposit of faith and morals that exists. It is important for us to recognize that to be potentially in error is not equivalent to being potentially heretical or schismatic. It is not probable that God would allow a living Roman Pontiff to be a formal heretic, and even if God did permit it, no one except God could judge the Pope to be one.5
As things stand, there are no adequate grounds to believe that Pope Francis is even a material heretic in his non-infallible magisterial teaching. We must listen to what he actually teaches magisterially and stop treating him as a straw man, and we must give his non-infallible teaching an internal assent of religious submission of intellect and will, even though it possibly contains errors. Both he and his successors can make any needed changes, qualifications, and revisions to their non-infallible doctrines and to those of their predecessors. Some doctrines will never change, such as those concerning the immorality of contraception and homosexual conduct. All the Catholic faithful owe religious submission of intellect and will to all authentic papal magisterial teaching. We are not allowed to withhold assent from any such teaching, and the submission owed is an internal assent to it as most probable. We need not assent to it as inerrant, but we are not permitted to give it merely external assent or no assent at all. The internal assent that is owed is not to it as true and clear but to it as authoritative and obligatory. We must give it internal assent even though we know that it could contain error. All the Catholic faithful should be clear about that duty.
Authentic papal teachings such as Fiducia Supplicans are not at the same level as Catholic truths (de fide tenenda), and dissent from them does not ipso facto constitute schism, but it is still a lesser form of disobedience. Often it is inculpable. Among Protestants it is ubiquitous yet usually inculpable. But simply refusing to do anything that violates one’s conscience or causes scandal does not constitute dissent. An act of dissent from Fiducia Supplicans would, for example, be maintaining that no priest or deacon can ever licitly bless a couple in an irregular union, not merely maintaining that under most conditions such a blessing is scandalous. In becoming or remaining Catholic Christians, we must recognize the intellectual need to be completely consistent. In my own journey to the full communion of the Catholic Church, I came to the conclusion that all such dissent from authentic papal magisterial teaching is unjustified, even when the teaching is non-infallible and seems like a mistake. So in becoming fully Catholic I readily agreed to accept all non-infallible papal magisterial teaching as more probable than my own judgment or the judgment of my peers. It was the only path to unity that made sense to me and seemed completely coherent.
Consistency is what requires Catholics not to dissent. Fiducia Supplicans binds the faithful to believe an authentic magisterial teaching about the nature of blessings. Catholics who withhold assent from it as obligatory are at some level being inconsistent, but they are not necessarily culpable or in mortal sin or heretical. They are simply in error, but the spiritual danger here is to make one’s own private judgment the principle of assent and thus implicitly to reject papal authority and fall into schism, as many have recently done. The assent of religious submission of intellect and will is an obligatory internal assent to non-infallible magisterial teaching that might contain error. Fiducia Supplicans is non-infallible authentic magisterial doctrine, like the documents of Vatican II, for that matter. As Catholics we owe all such documents religious submission of intellect and will, which is an internal assent of the mind and heart, not merely an external compliance with prudential pastoral judgment. To withhold internal assent on the basis of conscience is to dissent. Such withholding assent from any authentic magisterial teaching gets things backwards. As Catholics we owe internal assent even when we do not fully understand the content of the magisterial teaching. Fiducia Supplicans, like the documents of Vatican II, including Dignitatis Humanae, are clearly an exercise of authentic magisterium. Even when it is non-infallible, every legitimate exercise of the authentic magisterium must be interpreted with a hermeneutic of continuity and a principle of charity. Even if a particular exercise of the authentic magisterium could possibly be in error, it is nevertheless not probable for it to be in error unless and until the authentic magisterium itself acknowledges that it made a mistake. Anyone who teaches that Vatican II, Amoris Laetitia, or Fiducia Supplicans is not in continuity with Sacred Tradition is advancing a non-magisterial doctrine and is clearly in error insofar as he or she is preferring a non-magisterial judgment to the authentic magisterium. Such persons are not necessarily in schism, but they are clearly in error.
No member of the clergy is being asked by Pope Francis to violate his own conscience or to do anything that would give people serious scandal. But like all other popes, Francis is certainly asking all Catholics to assent to his authentic papal magisterium, and as Catholics we owe him that obedience. If on the basis of conscience we claim the right to withhold assent from the Pope’s third-level teaching, then we must on pain of consistency grant the same right to all those who are withholding assent from Dominus Iesus, Vatican II, or some other third-level magisterial teaching. How is that not a hermeneutic of private interpretation? And if we prefer the magisterial judgment of some bishop besides the Pope on some particular controversial third-level teaching, how is that not making the magisterial authority of someone who is not the Pope equal to the magisterial authority of the Pope? And how is that not personally picking and choosing which bishops to whom to give religious submission of intellect and will? The norm of religious submission thus becomes our own personal judgment about which bishop is the most reliable, rather than the Pope’s own magisterial judgment about that to which we owe submission. Thus we all become our own popes and fall into disunity. The trajectory toward disunity has been around long before Francis was elected to the papal office. Many well-intentioned Catholics nowadays are inadvertently and privately preferring their own judgments to those of the Pope, but to do so is always objectively incoherent with being Catholic. Those who do so publicly thereby make themselves agents of disunity.
We must let our conscience be our guide whenever it is certain, but we must not let our conscience be our guide whenever it is doubtful. Since a Catholic is someone who believes that the teaching of the Church regarding faith and morals is either infallible or at least probable if non-infallible, his or her own judgment of conscience cannot be morally certain if it does not agree with the judgment of the Church, because a lack of agreement with the Church constitutes a probable doubt in the judgment of conscience. For example, since the Church teaches that marital contraception is morally wrong, a Catholic can never be morally certain that marital contraception is morally permissible. The same is true of all the moral teachings of the Church, even when they have not been solemnly defined or infallibly taught. Thus a Catholic can never morally follow his or her own conscience if it does not agree with the infallible and non-infallible authentic magisterium. Such an act is objectively incoherent. Being Catholic entails not trusting private or personal judgments of conscience more than the infallible or non-infallible teachings of the authentic magisterium. Modernists and Liberalists find this requirement offensive, but it is a requirement for all Catholics, nonetheless. The spiritual danger of accusing the Pope of Modernism or Liberalism and rejecting his magisterial authority is that the very act of doing so is a probable sign of falling into Modernism or Liberalism.
On pain of consistency, we cannot withhold assent from Fiducia Supplicans as magisterial and authoritative. The fact that its content is non-infallible, or that some theologians or members of the clergy suspect that it contains an error or ambiguity that needs magisterial correction, does not justify withholding assent from it. We must give an internal assent to it out of respect for the legitimate though non-infallible magisterial authority of the current Roman Pontiff, even if we suspect that it contains an error or ambiguity that he or a subsequent Pope will need to address. To believe that a Pope has made a mistake in a practical pastoral or liturgical decision or directive should never be conflated with dissenting or withholding assent from an authentic exercise of his magisterial authority. No Catholic has the right to withhold assent or to dissent from any third-level magisterial documents, even though they are non-infallible and thus can contain mistakes and ambiguities. As Catholics we must internally assent to what possibly contains error and remains magisterially reformable. Protestants find this submission very puzzling, but they have no real basis for maintaining doctrinal unity. As Catholics we must assent to third-level teaching not as inerrant or infallible but merely as probable and reformable, and we must assume that the intentions of the Pope and his representatives are honorable even if we happen to believe that they have chosen ineffective or counter-productive means to moral and Christian ends.
Priests and deacons often find themselves in situations where they do not know what level of disorder is actually present in a particular human relationship that holds between people who are asking for an informal blessing. Whether the act is simply a blessing of the people in an irregular relationship, and not a blessing of their disordered union as such, essentially depends on the intention of the minister giving the blessing. It does not depend merely on whether the sign of the cross is made over them individually rather than together. We should always charitably presume that a priest or deacon has no intention of blessing sin in blessing sinners. All human acts are combinations of form and matter, and the form and the matter both matter. We should not reduce human acts either to exterior acts (as in physicalism) or to interior acts (as in intentionalism). St. Thomas Aquinas says that the specification of the act is taken formally from the proximate end for which it is done.6 He is referring to the end internal to the act itself, not the extrinsic end to which it is a means. That which makes a blessing of a couple or group in an irregular relationship not to be a blessing of their disordered relationship is the intention which the minister has in giving the blessing, which may not be apparent. Blessing their disordered union as such is always wrong, but blessing the couple or group is not always wrong. Blessing the couple or group is not intrinsically wrong but can be wrong in particular circumstances for extrinsic reasons such as giving direct or indirect scandal. The material circumstances must always be considered in order to know whether the act of blessing any couple is a morally permissible act.
Fiducia Supplicans asserts a difference in kind between formal and informal blessings, and it clarifies the material conditions required to make acts of blessing couples to be morally and pastorally permissible. With informal blessings, priests and deacons are not morally required to inquire about the chastity of the couple before giving the blessing, regardless of whether the couple is opposite-sex or same-sex. Ceteris paribus, the minister is morally required to avoid giving scandal and materially cooperating with evil, but he is not morally required always to manifest his intention to bless only the couple, not their irregular relationship or their sin. He is thus not morally required, for example, to bless the members of the couple or group individually rather than together. If a priest or deacon believes that in certain cases he ought to make it explicitly clear that he has no intention of blessing an irregular union as such, then he can act accordingly and include such an explicit sign in the blessing. But even if he chooses not to include one, we should always assume the best about the intentions of others, even when we might be mistaken. Sometimes, of course, we cannot help but suspect that a Catholic minister is formally cooperating with evil, and if we become certain that he is, then we ought to practice fraternal correction appropriately and charitably in accord with Matthew 18:15–17.
Fiducia Supplicans does not contradict the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas about indirect scandal.7 Indirect scandal in the act of blessing a couple or group in a disordered relationship is one in which the sin of the people receiving the blessing is not intended by the minister either as an end or as a means. There is no moral obligation to avoid all blessings or actions that might indirectly give scandal to others. Indirect scandal is permitted by St. Thomas whenever it satisfies the four conditions of the principle of double-effect. Those who are claiming that indirect scandal is never permitted are thereby imposing a stronger moral requirement than St. Thomas does. We must not uncharitably suppose that a priest or deacon who informally blesses such a couple as a couple without also clearly manifesting his intention not to bless the sinfulness of their relationship is thereby unjustly causing scandal and is thus guilty of sin. Many ministers and lay people become scrupulous in the moral obligation to avoid scandal. We may justly be appalled by the material cooperation with evil that becomes acceptable to Christian clergy who are attempting to be merciful and to work with political regimes motivated by secular ideologies, but sometimes our inclinations are too biased and too intolerant. All Christian pastors and ministers ought to be concerned to provide good moral guidance to all persons and couples, but it is not always appropriate to condemn sin that is apparent in others. Sometimes it is pastorally appropriate to condemn sin in others, but sometimes it is better and more effective overall to affirm what is good in others.
If a couple in an irregular union informally and spontaneously asks a Catholic minister for a blessing, and the minister informally and spontaneously blesses them without clearly communicating to them at that public moment that their relationship is irregular, it is not self-evident that the minister is guilty of the sin of scandal. What is self-evident is that the minister might have a legitimate reason to take the risk and to permit indirect scandal according to the principle of double-effect. The principle of double-effect can and often does justify remotely materially cooperating with evil and giving scandal indirectly. Some people interpret the moral demand to avoid scandal more rigidly than others do. There is no moral obligation always to avoid giving scandal indirectly. Pope Francis maintains that some but not all informal blessings of couples in irregular unions morally require a clear manifestation of the Catholic minister’s intent not to bless the irregular union as such. The Pope wants to leave it up to the minister to decide on a case-by-case basis whether such an external sign is necessary, which requires the minister to apply the principle of double-effect correctly and carefully. We ought to condemn sin in general, consistently pointing out the immorality of homosexual or contraceptive conduct for example, but we ought also to be careful about publicly manifesting our suspicions that certain individuals, couples, or groups are personally and culpably guilty of such sins. Perhaps part of the intent of Fiducia Supplicans is to encourage the faithful to stop entertaining groundless suspicions and to stop making false accusations in word and deed and in mind and heart.
In Catholic moral theology, it is a standard exercise to apply the principle of double-effect to any act that gives indirect scandal, in order to determine whether it would be morally permissible and thus not a sin. In the interest of understanding Fiducia Supplicans correctly, suppose that a couple in an irregular union spontaneously asks a Catholic minister for an informal blessing. The principle of double-effect would then apply to the informal blessing of the couple because the act in itself is not evil by its very nature. If we maintain that it is evil in itself, then we are begging the question. The minister has no intention of blessing their sin or their union as such, but he foresees the evil effect and the genuine risk that the act of informal blessing will potentially be mistaken as an approval of their sin and thus might give indirect scandal to the couple or to someone else who observes his act of blessing them. Blessing the two people individually does not effectively eliminate this bad effect, by the way, since to most people such an act still has the external appearance of approving the sin or irregular union of the couple and thus still has the potential to mislead people. The good effect can be recognized in the fact that the minister intends “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,” as Cardinal Fernández of the DDF explained in his clarification of Fiducia Supplicans.8 This good effect is not caused by or accomplished through the sin or irregular union of the couple. The evil effect is merely permitted and is not directly intended. The minister must believe that he has a proportionate reason to permit the evil effect. The minister should try to minimize or eliminate the risk of indirect scandal, but that is not always possible or appropriate to do. It is impossible to avoid all scandal whatsoever, and it is likewise impossible to avoid all actions that give real indirect scandal. Actions that give real indirect scandal are not ipso facto intrinsically wrong. Sometimes they are morally permissible. The principle of double-effect can never morally justify an intrinsically wrong kind of act, and we must judge on a case-by-case basis whether acts that are good or indifferent in themselves are morally permissible whenever we foresee the possibility or probability of unintended evil consequences. This kind of analysis is typical for treatments of real indirect scandal covered in traditional Catholic manuals of moral theology. If all acts that give real indirect scandal were ipso facto wrong in themselves, such manuals would not apply the principle of double-effect to such acts.
Catholic moral theology helps us to understand clearly what Fiducia Supplicans both is and is not teaching. Consider by analogy the famous trolley problem solved by the principle of double-effect. Judith Jarvis Thomson rejected this solution and argued that there is no moral difference between actively causing a person’s death and merely permitting a person’s death in diverting a runaway trolley away from five other people and thus necessarily toward that one person.9 Ironically, critics of Fiducia Supplicans who argue that there is no moral difference between directly causing scandal and merely permitting scandal by blessing a couple in an irregular union for a sufficient reason are making the same mistake as Judith Jarvis Thomson. There is in fact a moral difference between directly causing and merely permitting, which the traditional doctrine of double-effect recognizes and conserves.
As faithful Catholics, we must defend the authentic papal magisterium as a matter of principle. Such a defense is essential for maintaining Catholic unity. Every Catholic must be concerned about maintaining unity through religious submission to authentic papal magisterial doctrine. For this reason, we must assent to Fiducia Supplicans and assist others in doing so. Pope Francis has the authentic magisterial authority to guide the faithful in such matters, and in order to remain faithful we must trust and submit to his pastoral guidance, regardless of our personal opinions or inclinations. All people are morally permitted by natural law to foresee the potential of giving indirect scandal in a particular act that is morally good or indifferent in itself and to apply the principle of double-effect to justify performing that act for a proportionate reason. The evil effect is only permitted; it is foreseen but unintended. We are not always morally obligated to avoid foreseen evil effects. This is simply the traditional solution to the moral problem of the indirect voluntary. Thus we do not always have a moral duty to avoid acts that we think will give indirect scandal. Everyone is capable of understanding this traditional moral principle. It is true ceteris paribus that we ought to avoid appearances of evil and avoid giving indirect scandal, but such a moral duty does not apply unconditionally, and the principle of double-effect often justifies such acts. Pope Francis has implicitly invoked this traditional moral principle in his analysis of informal blessings of couples in irregular unions, and he has the magisterial authority to do so.
In accord with Donum Veritatis,10 we should also emphasize that merely having personal difficulties with a non-infallible magisterial doctrine or directive and personally believing that it is false or imprudent does not constitute dissent. After all, we are here talking about the act of giving religious assent or submission to a magisterial doctrine that admittedly is possibly false, so such an act of internal assent or submission does not entail believing that the doctrine is absolutely true. Indeed, religious submission of intellect and will is a kind of internal assent that is compatible with personally believing that a non-infallible magisterial doctrine is false or unclear. It is logically possible for the Catholic faithful to assent or submit to a doctrine which they personally suspect is false or unclear but nevertheless accept as magisterial and obligatory. A non-infallible doctrine is not guaranteed to be true just by being magisterial. The term “assent” may mean to believe to be true, or it may mean to accept as authoritative and obligatory.
We therefore need to distinguish between those two senses of the term. The refusal to assent to non-infallible magisterial doctrine has two forms: a person may simply find himself or herself personally unable to believe that a non-infallible doctrine is true, or a person may hold that he or she is not personally bound to adhere to the doctrine because it is not infallible and thus does not have an obligatory character. In the latter case, the person believes that the Catholic faithful are “totally free to raise doubts or reject the non-infallible teaching of the magisterium, particularly in the case of specific moral norms,” typically with the goal of “making a contribution to the development of doctrine” (Donum Veritatis 33). Only the latter case is necessarily an instance of dissent. If people simply find themselves psychologically unable to believe that a non-infallible magisterial doctrine is true, they are not ipso facto in dissent. A person can have some prudential reservations about non-infallible magisterial documents such as Fiducia Supplicans without being in dissent, just as a person can have some prudential reservations about the documents of Vatican II without being in dissent. Dissent is an act that assumes a false theory of freedom and then denies the obligation of the faithful to adhere to a magisterial doctrine and to accept it as authoritative, as if it were not binding on anyone who happens to have prudential reservations about it or suspects that it is false or unclear.
In that specific sense, consistency requires us to affirm that the faithful are not permitted to dissent from Fiducia Supplicans, just as they are not permitted to dissent from Humanae Vitae or the documents of Vatican II, even though they may have some personal reservations about these doctrines and directives. The point of Fiducia Supplicans was related to the preceding magisterial call for contextual moral theology in Ad Theologiam Promovendam, which grants that particular circumstances often determine what ought or ought not to be done, but without thereby relativizing intrinsically evil acts or compromising universal moral precepts. Some circumstances and contexts require greater precautions than others do, and the moral judgments of some people will be more or less strict than the moral judgments of others in the same circumstances or contexts. A disagreement about how best to apply Fiducia Supplicans in various circumstances and contexts does not constitute dissent from it so long as we are not universalizing or absolutizing our personal assessment of what is morally required in a particular case of permitting or forbidding indirect scandal, and then regarding our judgment as obligatory or binding on others.
Fiducia Supplicans adheres to the legitimate magisterial standard of contextuality without compromising any moral precepts. Indeed, leaving pastoral decisions about informal blessings of couples in irregular unions up to individual bishops, priests, and deacons in particular contexts, cultures, and circumstances seems to be one of the main goals of the DDF document. Some bishops, priests, and deacons will be more conservative than others in the evaluation of the circumstances and the estimation of the proportion required to justify such a blessing according to the principle of double-effect. That contextual outcome is exactly what the DDF document anticipated and facilitated. Such local pastoral applications are acceptable and should not be misconstrued as acts of dissent. It is long past time for us to stop criticizing and infighting and to direct our attention instead to evangelization and works of mercy and charity. May God bless all the deliberations and practical endeavors of our Catholic pastors and keep all the faithful confident in their divinely ordained leadership in the communion of the Holy Spirit.
- Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings,” 18 December 2023, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.html. ↩
- John Paul II, Ad Tuendam Fidem, 18 May 1998, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html. ↩
- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Responsum to a dubium regarding the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex,” 22 February 2021, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20210222_responsum-dubium-unioni_en.html. ↩
- Pope Francis, Ad theologiam promovendam, 1 November 2023, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/la/motu_proprio/documents/20231101-motu-proprio-ad-theologiam-promovendam.html. ↩
- Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 30. ↩
- Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 19, a. 6. ↩
- Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 43. ↩
- Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Press release concerning the reception of Fiducia Supplicans,” 4 January 2024, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20240104_comunicato-fiducia-supplicans_en.html. ↩
- Philippa Foot, “The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect” in The Oxford Review, 1967, Number 5; Judith Jarvis Thomson, “Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem” in The Monist, 1976, 59:204–17. ↩
- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Veritatis (On the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian), May 24, 1990, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html. ↩
About Dcn. Tracy Jamison, OCDS
Many bishops and priests throughout the world strongly disagree with your conclusions. FS is yet another example of the current papacy’s attempt to obfuscate and undermine the truths of the Church. It is scandalous.
Correction to: “In that specific sense, consistency requires us to affirm that the faithful are not permitted to dissent from Fiducia Supplicans.” No, Fiducia Supplicans was not pronounced ex cathedra. In Catholic doctrine, an ex cathedra statement (literally “from the chair” of Peter) refers to a formal declaration made by the Pope that is considered infallible and binding on all Catholics in matters of faith and morals. For a pronouncement to be ex cathedra, it must fulfill specific criteria, including a clear intention by the Pope to define a doctrine as an irrevocable truth of the faith (Lumen Gentium 25; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 891).
In the case of Fiducia Supplicans, this document was issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and does not carry the formal weight of an ex cathedra declaration. It is seen as a pastoral guidance document rather than a binding doctrinal statement, which is why it has been open to discussion and interpretation among bishops and theologians due to its subjective nature.
The document Fiducia Supplicans, issued by the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, has stirred debate within the Catholic Church, particularly for its approach to blessing same-sex couples. This declaration has been seen by some as introducing doctrinal ambiguities concerning the Church’s teachings on marriage and sexuality. Critics argue that it diverges from traditional Catholic doctrine by allowing pastoral blessings in “irregular” unions (e.g., same-sex couples) without a clear repudiation of such unions’ legitimacy, raising concerns about implicitly endorsing relationships not aligned with Catholic sexual ethics and natural law.
Theologically, the controversy revolves around the Catholic principle *Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi* (the law of praying is the law of believing), which suggests that the blessings should reflect established doctrine. Historically, blessings in the Church imply moral and doctrinal alignment with God’s will. Critics argue that blessing same-sex couples as “couples” could suggest ecclesial approval of their union, which contradicts longstanding teachings that recognize marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman.
From the perspective of Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us a blessing is an invocation of God’s favor meant to direct the recipient toward divine purpose, reinforcing moral and spiritual goods. Aquinas argues that any act contrary to natural law (such as sexual acts outside traditional marriage) cannot be blessed, as it would conflict with the Church’s goal of guiding souls toward virtue. This rationale underpins the Catholic teaching that blessings should affirm rather than contradict moral doctrines. (II-II, Question 83 and I-II, Question 94 on natural law and moral order.) Christ, The Way the Truth and the Light is not relative, and His Truth is singular and objective.
While Fiducia Supplicans clarifies that the Church does not change its stance on marriage or the morality of same-sex relations, critics worry that the document’s pastoral leniency could be misconstrued as endorsement which at the very least is causing confusion among the faithful. For more historical and grounded papal documents and teachings relevant to this discussion, documents like Familiaris Consortio by St. John Paul II emphasize marriage’s exclusivity as between a man and a woman, reinforcing that blessings should only support relationships that adhere to the Church’s moral teachings, or is there an argument in Fiducia Supplicans that truth can change?
I am not claiming that Fiducia Supplicans was pronounced ex cathedra. On the levels of assent required of the faithful, see the “Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei” at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html
As I explained in the article, we owe Fiducia Supplicans the third level of assent. We must “adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.” It is a serious error to maintain that the faithful need not assent to such teachings. If a pastor tells his congregation that such teachings are merely subjective and gives them permission to dissent, he is corrupting their act of faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church points out that even though this kind of religious assent is “distinct from the assent of faith,” it is “nonetheless an extension of it” (CCC 892). Truth does not change, and Fiducia Supplicans must be read in continuity with Familiaris Consortio. We are not permitted to dissent from any such documents of authentic papal magisterium, including DDF documents having express papal approval. May the Saints preserve us and help us to be agents of unity and continuity, not disunity and discontinuity.
Your assertion raises important points about the levels of assent required to teachings of the Magisterium and the proper response of the faithful. From a traditional and orthodox Catholic perspective, rooted in the **Summa Theologica**, the **Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)**, and **Sacred Scripture**, I would offer the following response to provide clarity and nuance:
### 1. **On the Levels of Assent to Magisterial Teachings**
The *Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei* indeed provides helpful guidance on the three levels of magisterial teaching:
– **First Level**: Truths proclaimed definitively and ex cathedra (e.g., dogmas).
– **Second Level**: Definitive teachings concerning faith and morals, though not proclaimed ex cathedra (e.g., certain moral teachings).
– **Third Level**: Teachings requiring religious submission of intellect and will, even when not proclaimed definitively.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 892) confirms that the third level involves authentic teachings of the Magisterium. It binds the faithful to “religious submission of intellect and will,” reflecting a prudential extension of the theological virtue of faith. However, this assent is distinct from the unconditional assent owed to infallible teachings (cf. CCC 891).
### 2. **The Role of Continuity in Doctrine**
It is true that *Fiducia Supplicans* must be read in light of the Church’s consistent Magisterium, including *Familiaris Consortio*. The hermeneutic of continuity, emphasized by Pope Benedict XVI, requires that no authentic papal teaching contradicts previous definitive teachings. In this, the faithful are not bound to assent to interpretations or applications of such documents that appear discontinuous with established doctrine.
For example:
– **Sacred Scripture**: *“If we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed”* (Galatians 1:8).
– **St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II, Q.33, A.4)**: Aquinas permits fraternal correction of prelates in cases where their words or actions could lead the faithful astray.
Thus, fidelity to magisterial teaching includes ensuring its alignment with the perennial deposit of faith.
### 3. **The Necessity of Prudence and Charity**
The charge of scandal, while serious, must be balanced with a charitable interpretation of the faithful’s response. Catholics are rightly concerned when documents or teachings—whether at the level of the papal magisterium or the DDF—seem susceptible to misinterpretation or misuse. Misinterpretations of magisterial documents, particularly when perceived as contradicting prior teachings, can create confusion among the faithful.
– **St. Paul’s Example**: *“Test everything; hold fast what is good”* (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Discernment, including seeking clarification, is a legitimate exercise of reason in fidelity to the Magisterium.
### 4. **On Dissent and the Role of the Laity**
It is critical to distinguish between legitimate questioning for clarification and willful dissent. Canon Law (Can. 212 §3) allows the faithful to express concerns about the governance of the Church when done respectfully and with proper intent. Ad hominem attacks against the Holy Father or Magisterium are clearly uncharitable and scandalous, as you rightly point out. Yet questioning the prudential aspects of non-definitive teachings—when done with charity and humility—is not contrary to faith.
### Conclusion
While *Fiducia Supplicans* requires the religious submission of intellect and will due to its placement within the authentic Magisterium, this assent presupposes that it is read in continuity with prior definitive teachings of the Church. Truth does not change, and the faithful have a right to seek clarity and alignment with tradition, as fidelity to the Church’s teaching involves fidelity to the deposit of faith.
The response of the faithful, including clergy, must always be characterized by humility, charity, and a love for the truth. As St. Augustine reminds us, *“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”*
May the Saints intercede for the Church, her shepherds, and her faithful, guiding us toward unity in truth and charity.
Fiducia Supplicans is not scandalous, but it can certainly be misused in ways that are scandalous, both objectively and subjectively. Launching ad hominem attacks against it and judging the Pope’s intentions uncharitably are also scandalous. May the Saints help bishops, priests, and all other disciples of Christ to be charitable and to avoid logical fallacies.
Your assertion invites reflection on how the faithful engage with teachings of the Magisterium, particularly when such teachings may be prone to misunderstanding or misuse. A traditional and orthodox Catholic perspective, informed by the **Summa Theologica**, the **Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)**, and **Sacred Scripture**, allows for a nuanced response:
### **1. The Nature of Scandal and Its Avoidance**
You correctly identify scandal as a grave issue. St. Thomas Aquinas defines scandal as *“something less rightly done or said that occasions another’s spiritual downfall”* (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.43, A.1). Scandal is particularly serious when caused by clergy or authoritative figures, as their actions or words have wider-reaching consequences for the faithful.
While *Fiducia Supplicans* itself may not be inherently scandalous, it is critical to recognize that any magisterial teaching, especially one requiring nuanced interpretation, must be carefully communicated to prevent misuse. St. Paul warns of this in Romans 14:13: *“Decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.”*
It is also important to distinguish between scandal caused by misuse or misinterpretation of a document and legitimate concerns raised about its content or potential ambiguities.
—
### **2. On Judging the Pope’s Intentions**
Your warning against judging the Pope’s intentions aligns with the call to charity and humility in the Gospel: *“Judge not, that you be not judged”* (Matthew 7:1). The faithful are called to assume good intentions on the part of the Holy Father, particularly in his role as shepherd of the Church.
However, this does not preclude thoughtful critique or seeking clarification of his teachings. St. Thomas Aquinas notes in the *Summa Theologica* (II-II, Q.33, A.4) that even prelates may be fraternally corrected when their words or actions risk leading the faithful into error or confusion. Such correction, rooted in love for the Church, does not constitute judgment of intentions but seeks fidelity to truth.
Furthermore, the *Catechism of the Catholic Church* (CCC 907) reminds the laity of their right and duty to express concerns: *“In accord with the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, [the laity] have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church.”*
—
### **3. Charity and Logical Argumentation**
Your appeal to avoid ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies is well-founded. Engaging in such behavior undermines the credibility of one’s position and violates the call to charity: *“Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ”* (Ephesians 4:15).
While it is necessary to avoid personal attacks, critiques of a document’s content or potential consequences are not inherently uncharitable. Pope Benedict XVI emphasized the importance of constructive dialogue in the Church, noting that differing opinions can serve as opportunities for deepening understanding when rooted in a shared love of Christ and His truth.
—
### **4. Misuse of Magisterial Documents**
It is true that *Fiducia Supplicans*—or any document of the authentic Magisterium—can be misused in ways that cause scandal. The faithful have a duty to interpret such teachings in light of the broader Tradition and the hermeneutic of continuity, as emphasized by Benedict XVI. When a document is presented or interpreted in a way that appears to deviate from established doctrine, confusion or division may arise.
The *Summa Theologica* (II-II, Q.1, A.10) affirms that faith cannot be opposed to reason or truth. If confusion arises from a teaching, it is appropriate to seek clarification and ensure alignment with the deposit of faith.
—
### **Conclusion**
While *Fiducia Supplicans* itself may not be scandalous, its potential misuse underscores the importance of clear communication and fidelity to Tradition. Ad hominem attacks and uncharitable judgments of the Pope’s intentions are indeed contrary to charity and the unity of the Church. At the same time, thoughtful, respectful dialogue aimed at ensuring doctrinal clarity is not only permissible but necessary for safeguarding the faith.
As St. Paul urges, *“Let all that you do be done in love”* (1 Corinthians 16:14). May the Saints intercede for us, guiding all members of the Church to approach such discussions with humility, fidelity, and a sincere desire for unity in Christ.
Unfortunately, history teaches us that a simplistic understanding of what constitutes definitive church teaching is not possible. Almost the whole church, including briefly even the pope, aligned with the Arian heresy. During the long period of warring popes in the Middle Ages, no one could be sure who spoke for the magisterium and even saints took opposite sides. The infallibility of the church is shown in the long run. In specific periods it can be quite messy and difficult to discern where the true path of Christ lies. An informed individual conscience is always necessary.
Yes, an informed individual conscience is always necessary, but the divinely ordained purpose of the authentic magisterium of the Catholic Church is to inform the individual human conscience. One of the contemporary challenges in carrying out that divine mission is the simplistic modern liberalist understanding of the human conscience which makes its own judgments the standard of truth and morality. The human conscience does not create moral commands but only communicates and bears witness to what comes from an outside authority. Conscience can and must be formed by the Church according to the truth. It is not a freedom from the truth or the authentic magisterium. The Church is better at judging truth than our conscience is, and our conscience is a less reliable guide to truth than the Church is. See #54-64 of John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html
What the whole Church actually believes and teaches infallibly or non-infallibly is not decided by a majority vote, and it is not impossible or even difficult to discern what the Catholic faithful are obliged to believe. The true difficulty lies elsewhere, with the decision whether to trust the judgment of the authentic magisterium and allow ourselves to be informed and guided by it, or rather to trust only our own judgment. There was little difficulty to discern what the authentic papal magisterium was teaching in Humanae Vitae, for instance, but many people were unwilling to believe it, and many pastors were giving people permission to follow their own personal judgments of conscience directly against the authentic papal magisterium. Such rationalizations of dissent interfere with the divinely ordained teaching mission of the Church and are always harmful to the faithful.
Please let me be clearer by presenting an Analysis of Doctrinal, Canonical, and Dogmatic Errors
Based on a traditional and orthodox Catholic perspective, here are potential issues in the assertions presented in the document regarding *Fiducia Supplicans*. References to **Holy Scripture**, the **Summa Theologica**, the **Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)**, and **Canon Law** are provided for clarity.
#### **1. Misunderstanding of Magisterial Authority**
The author asserts that Catholics are bound to give internal assent to non-infallible magisterial teachings (*Fiducia Supplicans*), even if the content is ambiguous or possibly erroneous.
– **Issue**: While *religious submission of intellect and will* (CCC 892) is owed to non-infallible teachings, this assent is distinct from the assent owed to infallible teachings (CCC 891). Non-infallible teachings can be respectfully questioned if they appear to contradict Sacred Tradition or prior definitive teachings (*Donum Veritatis*, 24-30).
– **Refutation**: St. Thomas Aquinas, in *Summa Theologica* (II-II, Q.33, A.4), permits fraternal correction of prelates when their teachings risk leading the faithful astray. Canon Law (Can. 212 §3) also allows for the faithful to respectfully voice concerns about ecclesiastical matters.
#### **2. Conflation of Internal Assent with Obedience**
The document implies that withholding internal assent to non-infallible teachings constitutes dissent and risks schism.
– **Issue**: The Catechism clarifies that religious submission does not require agreement with the truth of non-infallible teachings but a willingness to engage respectfully (CCC 892). Criticism made in good faith does not constitute dissent or schism.
– **Refutation**: Holy Scripture encourages testing all things: *“Test everything; hold fast to what is good”* (1 Thessalonians 5:21). The Church does not demand uncritical acceptance of potentially ambiguous teachings.
#### **3. Application of the Principle of Double Effect**
The author justifies blessings of couples in irregular unions based on the principle of double effect, suggesting that indirect scandal is permissible if good intentions are present.
– **Issue**: The principle of double effect cannot justify acts that appear to condone sin or undermine moral teachings. Blessing couples in objectively sinful unions risks public scandal (CCC 2284-2287) and misinterpreting the Church’s stance on marriage.
– **Refutation**: St. Paul warns against actions that cause scandal: *“It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble”* (Romans 14:21). St. Thomas Aquinas emphasizes avoiding actions that could lead others to sin (*Summa Theologica*, II-II, Q.43, A.1).
#### **4. Ambiguity and Relativism in Pastoral Application**
The document argues that pastoral discretion should allow for case-by-case decisions on blessings for irregular unions, claiming this reflects contextuality without relativizing moral norms.
– **Issue**: This risks undermining the universal moral teachings of the Church by allowing subjective interpretations that contradict established doctrine on marriage and sexuality (CCC 1646, 2357).
– **Refutation**: Canon Law (Can. 915) prohibits administering blessings or sacraments to those persisting in manifest grave sin without repentance. The Church must act to uphold moral clarity, not create ambiguity.
### Summary Refutation
#### **Holy Scripture**
– **Clarity in Doctrine**: *“For God is not a God of confusion but of peace”* (1 Corinthians 14:33). Ambiguity in moral teachings contradicts God’s nature and the Church’s mission to proclaim the truth clearly.
– **Scandal**: *“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck”* (Matthew 18:6).
#### **Canon Law**
– **Protection of Sacraments and Blessings**: Canon 915 forbids administering the sacraments or blessings to those in public sin without prior repentance to prevent scandal.
– **Faithful Correction**: Canon 212 §3 allows the faithful to respectfully express concerns about teachings that seem inconsistent with Catholic doctrine.
#### **Catholic Doctrine**
– **Assent to Non-Infallible Teachings**: Non-infallible teachings require religious submission (CCC 892) but may be respectfully questioned if they contradict prior definitive teachings or Sacred Tradition (*Donum Veritatis*, 24-30).
– **Marriage and Sexuality**: The Church teaches that irregular unions (e.g., cohabitation, same-sex unions) are objectively disordered and cannot be blessed as they contradict the divine institution of marriage (CCC 2357, 2384).
### Conclusion
While *Fiducia Supplicans* urges a nuanced pastoral approach, it must align with Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and prior magisterial teaching. Actions that risk scandal or imply approval of sin are contrary to Catholic moral theology and Canon Law. Faithful Catholics have the right and duty to seek clarification when magisterial documents appear ambiguous, ensuring fidelity to the unchanging deposit of faith. God who is Truth never changes.
I wish to commend Deacon Jamison on this excellent article. As someone who has been teaching ecclesiology at a major Catholic seminary for the last 25 years, I appreciate his understanding of the levels of assent to different types of magisterial teachings. He is quite right to note that Fiducia Supplicans [FS] merits religious submission of intellect and will according to Lumen Gentium, 25 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], 892. I especially appreciate his explanation of the different meanings of assent. To give religious assent to a third-level non-definitive teaching of the magisterium does not necessarily mean that one believes the teaching is absolutely true. Instead, it means that one gives assent to the teaching “as authoritative and obligatory.”
David Scott Pringle is correct in pointing to the CDF’s 1990 document, Donum Veritatis [DV] for guidance. The CDF does allow Catholics “to raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions” (DV, 24). Raising such questions, though, “should be done in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to overcome the difficulties” (DV, 29).
I think many of the negative reactions to Fiducia Supplicans are based on a misreading of the document. As Deacon Jamison points out, FS never allows for the blessing of sin or sinful unions. Sinners can receive informal blessings, but care must be taken to avoid giving the impression that sinful unions or sinful actions are blessed. Mr. Pringle’s appeal to canon 915 seems to be off the mark. That canon prohibits those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin from receiving Holy Communion. It does not mention blessings.
Scripture allows for the blessing of sinners but not the blessing of sin. In Luke 6:28, Jesus says: “Bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.” Surely our Lord was not asking us to bless the act of cursing. In Romans 12:14, St. Paul says: “Bless those who persecute; bless and do not curse them.” Certainly, Paul was not asking us to bless persecution.
Mr. Pringle is correct that canon 212.3 allows the faithful “to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church.” This canon is based on Lumen Gentium, 37 of Vatican II. Manifesting opinions to the sacred pastors, however, is different than correcting them. I am aware that St. Thomas Aquinas, in ST II-II, q. 33, a. 4 ad 2 says that “if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly.” How, though, does the subject know for sure that the faith is in danger? This passage of Aquinas can easily be abused by those who think they know the faith better than the magisterium. Although St. Thomas is a Doctor of the Church, his teachings are also subject to the discernment of the magisterium. In this regard, it’s important to know that one of the errors of John Wycliffe condemned by Pope Gregory XI in 1377 was: “An ecclesiastic, even the Roman Pontiff, can legitimately be corrected and even accused by subjects” (Denz.-H, 1139). This teaching of Gregory XI carries more authority than what Aquinas says in ST II-II, q. 33, a. 4 ad 2. St. Thomas himself would yield to the authority of Gregory XI on this point. The Angelic Doctor is quite clear that “we have to be more on the side of the authority of the Church than on that of Augustine or Jerome, or any other doctor” (Summa Theol. 11-11, q. 10, a. 12). And again: “No one can shield himself with the authority of Jerome or Augustine or any other doctor against the authority of Peter” (ibid. I-II, q.11, a. 2 ad 3).
The teaching of Fiducia Supplicans merits religious assent on the part of the Catholic faithful. While it is permitted “to raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents” of Fiducia Supplicans, (cf. DV, 24), Catholics must still adhere to what it teaches with religious submission of intellect and will. In his January 4, 2024 press release, Cardinal Fernández recognized the need for discernment regarding the practical applications of Fiducia Supplicans. He made it clear, though, that the distinction between blessings that are “liturgical or ritualized” and those that are “spontaneous or pastoral” is the real doctrinal and pastoral development of the document. All Catholics are to accept this distinction with religious submission of intellect and will because it comes from a magisterial document approved by the Roman Pontiff.
David Scott Pringle and I share many of the same basic concerns. We both want to avoid relativizing moral norms and the teaching of the Church. We both want to maintain a hermeneutic of continuity and fidelity to the deposit of faith and morals. We both are informed by the Thomistic interpretation of natural moral law. We both believe that there are fundamental natural and revealed truths that can never change. We both want to avoid schism and scandal. Where we seem to disagree is mostly about the following two points suggested by Mr Pringle: (1) the faithful are permitted to dissent from authentic papal magisterium whenever they judge it to be in discontinuity with the deposit of faith and morals or prior magisterial doctrine, and (2) the religious submission of intellect and will owed to authentic papal magisterium is merely “a prudential extension” of the theological virtue of faith. While I am not opposed to respectful dialogue, or to seeking clarification from the DDF, or to removing ambiguities from authentic magisterial documents, I must remain opposed, however, to giving myself or any of the faithful a right or permission to dissent from the authentic papal magisterium whenever it appears to us by our own personal judgment to be in discontinuity with the deposit of faith and morals or previous authentic magisterial doctrine. I must respectfully point out that such a subjective standard commits the very error that it seeks to avoid, and that it gives everyone the individual right to privilege and prefer their own private judgment over the judgment of the Roman Pontiff. The criterion that Mr Pringle is proposing is self-refuting and makes everyone their own pope. It goes way beyond the legitimate questioning that is granted by Donum Veritatis. Therefore, Mr Pringle is guilty of the same mistake that he is accusing me of making, namely, relativizing moral norms and the authentic teaching of the Church. Furthermore, according to the mind of St Thomas and the teaching of the Church, context does have a role in determining the moral rightness or wrongness of a particular act whenever the object and intention of that act are good or at least neutral. Circumstances matter, though they do not have priority to the object of the act or its intent. My use of the principle of double-effect to analyze the question of indirect scandal and to interpret and understand the content of Fiducia Supplicans is a very typical Thomistic application of that principle. It is not a hermeneutic of discontinuity or a program of relativism or subjectivism. Consult any traditional Catholic manual of moral theology from the 1950s on the topic of indirect scandal, and you will find the same analysis that I offered in the article above. It simply does not follow that attention to context and circumstances in moral or theological analysis entails relativism or undermines universal principles. The universal and the particular must both be taken into consideration, and we should avoid setting up a false opposition between them. I am very concerned to avoid falling into subjectivism, relativism, proportionalism, and the like, and I believe that the authentic magisterium of Pope Francis has carefully avoided such errors. The non-infallible character of his teaching does not entail that it is merely prudential or not internally binding on the faithful, and of course the same goes for the authentic papal magisterium of his predecessors. Believe it or not, it seems to me that the magisterial teaching of Pope Francis is in continuity with that of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, even though they each emphasize different aspects of the organic whole.
I appreciate Fr. Deacon Tracy’s thoughts on Fiducia Supplicans as well as his holy ministry. I also appreciate Prof. Fastiggi’s erudition and scholarship, but I must demur somewhat from their views.
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith participates in the Papal Magisterium. A “declaration” is one of the highest levels of document that it can issue. Still, any statement of the DDF, even a declaration, exists at a lesser level of authority than, say, a Papal Encyclical. Still, the DDF participates in the Pope’s magisterium, and the Popes exercise their teaching authority through statements of the DDF. However—and, this is a big point!—it seems that Pope Francis not only approved FS, but that he also went the further step of signing his name to it, which would appear to indicate that he specifically intended for FS to be accepted as part of his Ordinary Magisterium, and not just a statement of the DDF. Anyways, whether approved directly or indirectly, FS is indeed magisterial, and requires reverent assent as per Lumen Gentium #25.
But, I think, there are two distinct issues here: (1) the actual teaching and the (2) practice of that teaching.
Of these two, only (1) definitely requires assent, submission of mind and will, as well as obedience in proposing it, explaining it, and defending it. Of course, (2) should follow from one’s docile acceptance of the teaching, even if there were concerns about it. In some cases, it might be that otherwise faithful Christians accept (1), but not (2). I think here of Byzantine Catholics (of whom I am one), who accept the authenticity of the Church’s magisterium on the procession of the Holy Spirit, but who do not or will not recite the addition, Filioque, to the Creed. (Although, we were forced to do so by Rome for many centuries.)
But, for FS, there are problems here in the realms of both (1) and (2) that need to be addressed. And, I am not sure that they are addressed properly by just saying that Catholics must assent, adhere, whatever, to the Church’s Magisterium.
First, there is a question of what magisterium in particular has been exercised in FS. For, its title as well as its text specify that the focus is “on the pastoral meaning of blessings [sul senso pastorale delle benedizioni].” It even italicizes the phrase, “pastoral meaning of blessings,” in the document to highlight its importance for the Reader! Granted, doctrinal considerations come into play, which is why the DDF wanted to assign it the status of a “declaration.” But, FS seems clear that it wants to develop, if anything, an understanding (comprensione) of the Church’s practice—not necessarily Her doctrine. If I am right on this, then the document is an oddity; and, it might not be proper to speak of “assent” to it or “dissent” at all, rather differences of prudential opinion. FS would then propose a prudential understanding of Blessings which, although it touches on doctrine, is neither properly doctrinal nor magisterial per se.
By the way, I still cannot locate FS in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 115 (2023). Some on the Internet claim that publication in the Acta does not mean anything for the magisterial authority for a document. Well, okay. But, it does act as a kind of “stamp of approval” or reliable indication that something (especially, a doctrinal statement) is important. Consider the publication in the AAS of Pope Francis’ personal letter to the Argentine Bishops on the proper interpretation of certain parts of Amoris Laetitia! Still, it is odd. Another thing: Where is the typical edition of the statement? It has been almost a year since FS was issued . . . with a Latin title! And, there is still no Latin grundlage on which to base or check translations. Again—odd.
Second (and, perhaps, most importantly), in FS, Card. Fernandez of the DDF specifically declares that his intention in the document is to develop “a broader understanding of blessings.” What is the basis for such a development? Is it the Deposit of Faith? The Church’s previous magisterium on blessings? No—rather, it is to implement “the pastoral vision of Pope Francis” (cf. #13 and Presentation). He even goes so far as to admit openly that FS is not grounded in the Church’s magisterial understanding of Blessings, received from Scripture and Tradition. (Though, the declaration does make a paltry attempt to ground its ideas in the Bible. But, what I come away with from that section is: God blesses people, Jesus blesses people, people bless people. Yeah, . . . and?) Rather, the DDF proposes an utter novelty: “The value of this document . . . is that it offers a specific and innovative contribution” (Presentation). That sends up a “red flag” for me: Where in the history of Catholic belief has it ever been proposed that the Church’s role is to actively “innovate” the Deposit of Faith? That development happens and has happened is undeniable: Any historian of Christian dogma knows that the Church’s understanding of Her beliefs has deepened (and, changed) over time; and, the principle of doctrinal development is certainly accepted at Vatican II (cf. Dei Verbum #8) and has been after. But, I question the assumption latent in FS that the Church has received any mandate to develop on Her own authority the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.
True, Jesus says God the Holy Spirit will lead the Church unto all truth (Jn. 16:13). But, who is the One leading on the way of Truth and who is the one following? Lumen Gentium is not the only place where the Church’s Magisterium is discussed. In the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum (#10), the Council teaches: “This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.” The word given to the Church’s Bishops’ role is: “interpreter” (C.C.C., para 85; based on DV above). The Bishops, even the Pope of Rome, are bound by the Deposit of Faith, which they are to: teach, listen to, and guard.
So, on the question of assent, I am not sure that “assent” is even the right language to use for FS, since it so obviously places itself outside the ambit of a magisterial act: It is concerned with the pastoral and prudential understanding of Blessings and their application (hence, not doctrinal); it presents its activity as one of “innovating” (which immediately in my view could disqualify it as a magisterial statement at all, since it conflicts fundamentally with the Magisterium’s role, given to it by Christ.)
There is also the further question of why a new, developed meaning for Blessings was deemed required in the first place. FS answers this by basically saying that Pope Francis wanted it: Its purpose was to develop the Church’s understanding in such a way that his pastoral vision could be applied in certain cases. (Perhaps, that is why almost all the notes, except for the scriptural citations, are contemporaneous with Pope Francis’ pontificate.) Those cases include “couples [coppie]” in “irregular situations,” that is, unmarried situations as well as those in same-sex relationships. A lot of ink has been spilled on the Internet over what “couple” means; and, I do not intend to go over it in depth here. Suffice it to say, I think, a lot of the discussion has been needlessly casuistic. We know what the document wants to say: Clerics can bless together people living in otherwise sinful relationships. If the DDF had wanted to avert any hint of misinterpretation, it could have easily provided that individuals living in irregular situations or same-sex relationships ought not to be turned away by a Cleric from receiving a blessing on the simple fact of that individual person’s situation (even if a blameworthy one). On the contrary, the DDF declares quite specifically that those who present themselves as a couple living in such relationships should not be turned aside; the couple ought to be blessed. Indeed, FS admits that those couples who desire the Church’s blessing want “all that is true, good, and humanly valid in . . . their (sinful?) relationships [to] be enriched, healed, and elevated” (#31).
As for Prof. Fastiggi’s scriptural quotations and his interpretations thereon, they are not truly apposite. Each deals with the Christian’s response to actions done to him or her: cursing or persecuting; neither deals at all with the question of (seemingly) condoning or otherwise cooperating in someone’s else’s sin. For that, he seems unaware of what might be the most appropriate scripture from St. Paul: “It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans—a man living with his father’s wife. . . . The one who did this deed should be expelled from your midst. . . . [W]hen you have gathered together and I am with you in spirit with the power of the Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord” (I Cor. 5:1–2, 4–5). But, we might ask with FS, what about whatever is true, good, and humanly valid in that man’s incestuous relationship? I do not know how one could assent to such perverse logic.
I am not sure how to take Prof. Fastiggi’s comments about the faithful correcting their pastors. Are we really being asked to revert to the old model of “pay, pray, and obey”? As per the citation of His Holiness Pope Gregory XI, does Prof. Fastiggi really regard himself as a “subject” of the Bishop of Rome? Does he believe that a Cleric may not be legitimately accused by a “non-ecclesiastic” (as if we, the Baptized, are not all part of the Church)? Nathan was the son of the King; Amos was a simple vine-dresser; Catherine of Siena was a nun. Perhaps, each should have stayed his or her mouth in the face of false moves by their superiors. And, let us not pass over the great irony of Prof. Fastiggi’s choice of Pope: the last of the Avignon Popes, whose acts caused so much confusion to the Church. To his credit, Gregory ultimately returned the Popes to Rome—at the stern prodding of the aforementioned Catherine—but, the awful scandal of Avignon reaped its full fruit in the Great Western Schism that followed Pope Gregory’s death. Perhaps, Prof. Fastiggi does not really believe these things, and is simply playing Devil’s Advocate. I hope so. If not, then I think his view recovers only the worst elements of the Church’s pre-conciliar Ecclesiology.
We seem to have a gap in the understanding of what it is the submission of the Intellect and the Will. Prof. Dietrich von Hildebrand, a prominent Catholic philosopher, offers profound insights into the submission of the intellect and the will, particularly in the context of faith, truth, and authority. His reflections align closely with Catholic philosophical and theological traditions.
________________________________________
Submission of the Intellect
1. Recognition of Truth as Objective Reality:
o For von Hildebrand, the submission of the intellect is rooted in a profound acknowledgment of the objective nature of truth. He emphasizes that truth exists independently of personal preferences or subjective interpretations. This submission requires the intellect to conform to the truth rather than attempting to mold truth to personal desires or preconceived notions.
o In his work Transformation in Christ, von Hildebrand notes that the intellect must be receptive and humble before divine revelation, recognizing that God’s truth surpasses human understanding. (Transformation in Christ is an excellent read)
2. Faith and the Supernatural Gift of Understanding:
o Submission of the intellect in faith involves accepting truths revealed by God through His Church, even when these truths surpass natural reason. Von Hildebrand argues that this is not an irrational act but a deeply rational one, as it is grounded in trust in God’s perfect authority.
o He contrasts this with intellectual pride, which refuses submission to higher authority and insists on personal autonomy in determining truth.
3. Conformity to the Church’s Magisterium:
o Von Hildebrand emphasizes that the submission of the intellect is particularly crucial in relation to the Church’s teaching authority. He views the Church as the custodian of divine revelation, and thus, submission to the Magisterium is an act of humility and fidelity to Christ Himself.
o This submission does not negate the legitimate use of reason but situates reason within the framework of faith. He stresses that the Church’s teachings, even when non-infallible, warrant a “religious submission of intellect and will,” echoing the principles outlined in Vatican I and II.
________________________________________
Submission of the Will
1. Union with God’s Will:
o Von Hildebrand sees the submission of the will as a key element in the Christian life. He highlights that submission to God’s will is the pathway to true freedom and fulfillment, as it aligns human desires with divine love and purpose.
o In his writings, particularly The Heart, von Hildebrand explores the transformation of the human will as it becomes increasingly attuned to God’s will through love and grace.
2. Obedience to Authority:
o Submission of the will includes obedience to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. For von Hildebrand, this is not a blind or servile obedience but one motivated by love for Christ and trust in His Church. He warns against both rebellious disobedience and legalistic compliance, advocating instead for a heartfelt embrace of God’s commandments and the Church’s directives.
3. Personal Freedom and the Surrender of Autonomy:
o Von Hildebrand underscores that true freedom is found in surrendering one’s will to God. This surrender is not an annihilation of personal autonomy but its proper fulfillment. By submitting to God, the will is elevated and participates in the divine plan.
________________________________________
Von Hildebrand’s Distinctions
1. Submission Is Not Subjugation:
o Von Hildebrand is careful to distinguish between submission and subjugation. Submission of the intellect and will is not a denial of one’s rationality or personal dignity but an act of profound trust and reverence for the divine truth and order established by God.
2. Role of Love in Submission:
o He insists that love animates true submission. Without love for God and His Truth, submission risks becoming mere legalism or external compliance.
3. Faithful but Critical Engagement:
o While von Hildebrand defends the necessity of submission to ecclesial authority, he also acknowledges the legitimate role of reason and conscience in engaging with Church teachings. Respectful questioning and seeking clarity, particularly with non-infallible teachings, do not undermine submission but enhance understanding and fidelity.
________________________________________
Philosophical and Theological Foundations
Von Hildebrand’s perspective reflects the Catholic tradition’s integration of faith and reason:
• St. Thomas Aquinas: Like Aquinas, von Hildebrand sees faith as the perfection of reason, where the intellect submits to truths revealed by God, which are beyond but not contrary to reason (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.4, A.1).
• Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC): Submission of intellect and will to the Church’s teachings (CCC 892) reflects trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit in safeguarding divine truth.
• Vatican I and II: Both councils affirm that submission to the Church’s teaching authority is not optional but essential for preserving unity and fidelity to Christ.
________________________________________
Conclusion
For Dietrich von Hildebrand, the submission of the intellect and will is a profound expression of humility, faith, and love. It acknowledges the primacy of divine truth and the authority of the Church while integrating reason and personal conscience in a harmonious pursuit of God’s will. This submission is neither a denial of freedom nor a suppression of individuality but the highest fulfillment of both in the context of divine grace and Truth.
I have the following concerns on Deacon’s last posting:
1. Ad Hominem Attacks: Focus on addressing the content of the discussion while dismissing personal attacks as irrelevant and uncharitable. I only posted Catholic doctrine and dogma, in civil discourse one cannot attest a belief or position to another.
2. Reaffirmation of Traditional Catholic Teachings: Highlight any deviations in Fiducia Supplicans from established Catholic moral and doctrinal teachings.
3. Evidence-Based Argumentation: Use references to Canon Law, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, pre-Vatican II documents, and traditional Catholic moral theology.
4. Demonstrate Continuity or Departure in Pope Francis’s Teaching: Identify areas where Fiducia Supplicans aligns with or departs from established Catholic moral norms.
________________________________________
1. Ad Hominem Attack
It is important to note that personal attacks do not contribute to a constructive theological dialogue. As Catholics, we are called to engage in charitable discourse (cf. Ephesians 4:15, “speaking the truth in love”). The use of ad hominem arguments violates the principle of charity and detracts from the substantive discussion of the topic. Instead of engaging in such rhetoric, let us focus on the theological and moral issues at hand, particularly the fidelity of Fiducia Supplicans to Catholic doctrine.
________________________________________
2. Submission to Authentic Magisterium and Respectful Dialogue
Clarifying the Nature of Religious Submission
• Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 892) teaches that non-infallible teachings of the magisterium require “religious submission of intellect and will.” This submission respects the authority of the magisterium but does not equate to the assent owed to infallible teachings (CCC 891).
• Donum Veritatis emphasizes that theologians may respectfully question ambiguities or perceived contradictions in non-infallible teachings, provided they do so with the intent to clarify and uphold Church unity (Donum Veritatis, 24-30).
Addressing Departures in Fiducia Supplicans
While it is proper to submit to authentic magisterial teachings, it is equally valid to question ambiguities or inconsistencies, as suggested by St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica (II-II, Q.33, A.4). Such questioning is not dissent but part of the Church’s rich theological tradition.
________________________________________
3. Pope Francis and Catholic Moral Teachings
Blessings of Couples in Irregular Unions
The document Fiducia Supplicans implies a permissibility of informal blessings for couples in irregular unions under certain circumstances. This position appears to conflict with the following:
1. Universal Moral Norms:
o The Catechism explicitly teaches that cohabitation and homosexual acts are “gravely sinful” and cannot be approved or condoned by the Church (CCC 2357-2359, 2384). Blessing such unions, even informally, risks causing scandal and giving the appearance of condoning sin (CCC 2284-2287).
2. Canon Law:
o Canon 915 prohibits the administration of sacraments to those who persist in manifest grave sin without repentance. While Fiducia Supplicans pertains to blessings rather than sacraments, the principle of avoiding scandal still applies.
3. Pre-Vatican II Documents:
o Pope Pius XI, in Casti Connubii (1930), reaffirmed the indissolubility of marriage and condemned practices undermining the sanctity of the marital union, including irregular unions.
Use of the Principle of Double Effect
The application of the principle of double effect to justify blessings for couples in irregular unions is problematic because:
• The act itself (blessing couples in manifest sin) risks being perceived as condoning sin, failing the requirement that the act be morally good or neutral.
• The risk of scandal (foreseen negative effect) outweighs the potential good of strengthening faith, especially when alternative pastoral approaches exist.
Departure from Traditional Catholic Moral Theology
• Pre-Vatican II manuals of moral theology consistently emphasize the duty to avoid scandal in all circumstances. Fiducia Supplicans introduces a pastoral approach that appears to relativize this principle, contrary to traditional teaching (cf. Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.43, A.1).
________________________________________
4. Refuting Relativism and Subjectivism
Hermeneutic of Continuity
• Vatican II documents, including Dignitatis Humanae, must be interpreted in light of Tradition. The suggestion that Fiducia Supplicans is a legitimate development risks appearing as a rupture rather than a continuity of moral doctrine unless clearly reconciled with the universal teaching of the Church.
Avoidance of Relativism
• Contextuality in moral theology is valid but must never undermine universal principles (cf. Veritatis Splendor, 79-83). Allowing subjective pastoral decisions to dominate risks moral relativism, which Pope John Paul II explicitly condemned in Veritatis Splendor.
________________________________________
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
• Charity in Dialogue: Personal attacks must cease. Constructive theological discourse should focus on clarifying ambiguities and strengthening the unity of Holy Mother the Church.
• Clarification from the Magisterium: The ambiguities in Fiducia Supplicans warrant further clarification to ensure fidelity to Sacred Tradition back the Gospels and the teachings of the Holy Apostles and avoid scandal. God who is Truth cannot change.
• Adherence to Traditional Doctrine: Pastoral approaches must always uphold the sanctity of marriage and avoid the appearance of condoning sin, as emphasized in Scripture, Canon Law, and the Catechism.
By adhering to these principles and the teachings of Vatican II and all the Magisterium, the faithful can navigate controversial teachings with fidelity to the Church while engaging in respectful dialogue aimed at clarifying and upholding the deposit of faith.
I am reminded of a comment once made by Elizabeth Anscombe concerning the negative reception of Humanae Vitae (“Contraception and Chastity” 1972): “…while one doesn’t have to be learned (nobody has to be learned) or able to give a convincing account of the reasons for a teaching—for remember that the Church teaches with the authority of a divine commission, and the Pope has a prophetical office, not a chair of science or moral philosophy or theology—all the same the moral teaching of the Church, by her own claims, is supposed to be reasonable. Christian moral teachings aren’t revealed mysteries like the Trinity. The lack of clear accounts of the reason in the teaching was disturbing to many people. Especially, I believe, to many of the clergy whose job it was to give the teaching to the people.”
The moral teaching of Fiducia Supplicans is in fact reasonable, but it assumes that the reader has knowledge of distinctions typically made in Catholic moral theology and traditional natural-law ethics. Those who find the teaching of Fiducia Supplicans difficult or disturbing may need to get acquainted or reacquainted with such distinctions. For example, giving scandal means affording others occasions of sin. Direct scandal intends the sin of others as an end in itself or as a means to some other end and is therefore intrinsically evil. Indirect scandal does not intend the sin of others either as an end or as a means and is therefore not intrinsically evil, though it can be evil extrinsically by virtue of its motive or circumstances. Indirect scandal by definition does not intend evil directly. The principle of double-effect applies to indirect scandal but not to direct scandal. The principle of double-effect always requires that the act be good in itself or at least indifferent. Giving indirect scandal is sometimes morally permissible and requires attention to circumstances, but giving direct scandal is never morally permissible. All of this is assumed by Fiducia Supplicans and does not compromise the moral order. It is not a form of relativism, subjectivism, proportionalism, or situation ethics. It assumes the need for pastoral discernment in order to minimize scandal as much as possible. It is in continuity with the magisterial teaching of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Pope Francis and the DDF are employing basic distinctions which are well-established in traditional natural-law ethics. Anyone who does not make such distinctions will find Fiducia Supplicans confusing.
Fiducia Supplicans contains both authentic magisterial doctrine and pastoral application. Authentic magisterial doctrines are non-revealed expositions, potentially but not actually infallible, which interpret the deposit of faith and the natural moral law, taught ordinarily but non-infallibly, either universally or non-universally, to which the faithful owe religious assent of intellect and will (which means that we are obligated to assent to them as authoritative but not as actually infallible). They are not merely prudential judgments, to which the faithful owe merely external assent. The “religious assent” of the faithful—their submission (obsequium religiosum) of intellect and will to non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching—is both “distinct from the assent of faith” and “an extension of” the assent of faith, as the Catechism puts it (CCC 892). It is materially distinct from the assent of faith (fides quae) by virtue of its non-infallible content, but it is also formally an extension of the assent of faith (fides qua). It is not blind faith, but as a reasonable act of obedience to a legitimate religious authority, it is formally in the order of faith, not in the order of reason. As Anscombe observes, “the Pope has a prophetical office, not a chair of science or moral philosophy or theology.” His authentic magisterial teaching is authoritative and binding on the faithful even when it is non-infallible.
Reason is not the direct cause of the assent of faith or of the extension of the assent of faith called obsequium religiosum. The contribution of reason is simply to remove obstacles, and that which removes an obstacle (removens prohibens) is a merely an indirect cause—a causa per accidens, not a causa per se, as Aquinas puts it (ST IIª-IIae q. 3 a. 1 ad 2). Many people have obstacles to giving assent to non-infallible magisterial doctrines. Such obstacles may stem from concerns to avoid error, but personal judgments are always far more fallible than magisterial doctrines. Donum Veritatis (34) asserts that “magisterial teaching, by virtue of its divine assistance, has validity beyond its argumentation.” Catholics who give themselves permission to dissent from authentic magisterial doctrines are being inconsistent. To point out that fact to them is not an ad hominem attack. If they believe that they can reject authentic magisterial doctrines because they are not convinced by the argumentation, then they have already taken a stance which regards such doctrines as debatable assertions, not as authoritative proclamations requiring religious assent. The spirit in which I wrote the article above was per modum removens prohibens to the act of religious submission of intellect and will. Please do not misjudge that spirit.
A clarification: the HH the Pope did not write or approve Fiducia Supplicans.
Doctrinal Errors in the previous statement:
1. Overreach of Religious Submission
The statement asserts that Catholics must offer religious submission of intellect and will to non-infallible magisterial teachings, implying that this submission excludes any questioning or critical engagement.
Error: While religious submission of intellect and will is owed to non-infallible teachings (CCC 892), such submission does not equate to blind or uncritical acceptance. The Church allows for respectful questioning when such teachings appear ambiguous or inconsistent with prior magisterial teaching (cf. Donum Veritatis, 24-30).
Refutation:
St. Thomas Aquinas: Aquinas affirms the legitimacy of correcting superiors in matters of evident error or ambiguity, provided this is done respectfully and for the good of the Church (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.33, A.4).
Canon Law: Canon 212 §3 grants the faithful the right to express concerns to their pastors, provided this is done with respect for ecclesiastical authority.
2. Misapplication of the Principle of Double Effect
The statement defends Fiducia Supplicans by arguing that indirect scandal may be permissible under the principle of double effect, suggesting that blessings for couples in irregular unions may fall under this principle.
Error: The principle of double effect cannot justify acts that are intrinsically evil or appear to condone sin. Blessing couples in irregular unions risks public scandal, which is gravely harmful to the moral order (CCC 2284-2287).
Refutation:
Holy Scripture: St. Paul warns against actions that cause others to stumble: “It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble” (Romans 14:21).
Pre-Vatican II Moral Theology: Manuals of moral theology consistently teach that avoiding scandal is a grave duty. Even indirect scandal must be carefully assessed to avoid undermining the Church’s moral teachings.
3. Ambiguity Regarding Continuity with Tradition
The statement claims that Fiducia Supplicans is in continuity with the teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, despite its pastoral innovations.
Error: Authentic continuity requires that new teachings do not contradict prior magisterial doctrines or Sacred Tradition. By permitting blessings that may imply approval of irregular unions, Fiducia Supplicans risks contradicting the Church’s clear teaching on the sanctity of marriage and the immorality of certain unions (CCC 1646, 2357, 2384).
Refutation:
Catechism of the Catholic Church: Marriage is indissoluble (CCC 1646), and homosexual acts are gravely disordered (CCC 2357). Any act that suggests approval of such unions undermines these teachings.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: The Church cannot condone unions that deviate from the divine institution of marriage. To do so would contradict God’s revealed law on the sanctity of marriage.
4. Reduction of Reason’s Role in Faith
The statement minimizes the role of reason in the assent to faith, claiming that reason merely removes obstacles to belief and plays no intrinsic role in the act of faith.
Error: Catholic theology teaches that faith and reason are complementary. While faith transcends reason, it is not irrational, and reason provides essential support for understanding and defending the faith.
Refutation:
St. Thomas Aquinas: Faith is not contrary to reason but builds upon it. Aquinas states, “To believe is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace” (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.2, A.9).
Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris: Reason plays a vital role in understanding divine truths and defending the faith against error.
Doctrinal Concerns Regarding Fiducia Supplicans which was not approved by His Holiness need to be clarified.
Departure from Catholic Moral Teachings
Blessings for Irregular Unions:
Permitting blessings for couples in irregular unions risks causing scandal and undermining the Church’s clear teachings on marriage and chastity (CCC 2357, 2384).
Ambiguity in Moral Guidance:
The document’s emphasis on pastoral discretion introduces ambiguity, which risks relativizing universal moral norms. This contrasts with the clarity demanded by Catholic moral theology (cf. Veritatis Splendor, 79-83).
Contradictions with the Catechism
CCC 1646: The indissolubility of marriage cannot be compromised.
CCC 2357: Homosexual acts are gravely disordered, and no pastoral action should suggest their approval.
Pre-Vatican II Teachings
Casti Connubii (1930): Reaffirms the sanctity of marriage and condemns any practices or actions that undermine its divine character.
Pius XII’s Warnings Against Ambiguity: Pastoral approaches must not obscure or dilute moral teachings, lest they lead to confusion and error among the faithful.
Conclusion
The statement defending Fiducia Supplicans contains several doctrinal errors:
Overextending the nature of religious submission.
Misapplying the principle of double effect to justify scandalous actions.
Claiming continuity with tradition despite introducing ambiguity that undermines moral clarity.
Minimizing the role of reason in the act of faith.
Fiducia Supplicans requires further clarification to align fully with Catholic moral theology and the perennial teachings of the Church. The faithful are called to approach such documents with respect but also with a commitment to safeguarding the integrity of the deposit of faith. This includes respectfully seeking clarification where ambiguities arise, always within the context of fidelity to Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.
It does not matter who actually wrote the text of Fiducia Supplicans. There is no question that Pope Francis reviewed and “approved it with his signature,” as Cardinal Fernández states in its presentation on December 18, 2023. Claiming that Pope Francis did not approve the DDF Declaration Fiducia Supplicans is like claiming that John Paul II did not approve the CDF Instruction Donum Veritatis. Both claims are false, and we owe religious assent to both documents. It is inconsistent to dissent from the content of Fiducia Supplicans while submitting to the content of Donum Veritatis, and Donum Veritatis (18) itself affirms that “The Roman Pontiff fulfills his universal mission with the help of the various bodies of the Roman Curia and in particular with that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in matters of doctrine and morals. Consequently, the documents issued by this Congregation expressly approved by the Pope participate in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter.”
Even before Fiducia Supplicans appeared, the fact that a development of doctrine akin to the one it contains was imminent in the papal magisterium was already apparent from the content of the response that Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernández gave to the dubia of the five Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, Robert Sarah, and Joseph Zen Ze-kiun on July 10, 2023. Several of us predicted that a new magisterial intervention like Fiducia Supplicans was on the way. See my article of October 18, 2023 “Papal Consistency on Same-sex Blessings” at https://wherepeteris.com/papal-consistency-on-same-sex-blessings/. Donum Veritatis (24) warns us that “The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule.”
With regard to the question of assent, it also does not matter what the motives behind Fiducia Supplicans were, but charity requires us to assume that they were good. The content of the Declaration assumes that all direct scandal and formal cooperation with evil is intrinsically evil, but it also assumes that giving scandal indirectly is not evil intrinsically but can be evil extrinsically. Every time the Church grants a declaration of nullity to a person with a prior civil marriage and blesses that person’s new attempt at marriage, she is permitting scandal indirectly for a sufficient reason in a particular case. Many pastors are painfully aware of parishioners who were scandalized indirectly and stopped practicing the Catholic faith when their spouse or mother or father left home and obtained a declaration of nullity from the Church. And every time a pastor allows a civilly divorced and remarried parishioner to abstain from sexual relations and to return to Holy Communion, he is permitting scandal indirectly for a sufficient reason in a particular case. It is certainly best to avoid giving indirect scandal whenever possible, but indirect scandal is not always avoidable and is sometimes morally permissible.
Charity also demands that we do not persistently attribute to the Pope and to others intentions and opinions which they have affirmed that they do not have. Perception is theory-laden, but it is also virtue-laden, vice-laden, emotion-laden, and faith-laden. Many people are afraid that Fiducia Supplicans reflects an agenda to change the magisterial definition of marriage, but such a fear typically manifests a lack of faith in the divine assistance given to magisterial teaching (Donum Veritatis 34). It is analogous to the fear that sometimes drives Protestants to throw Biblical proof-texts against Catholic doctrines. We obviously accept and agree with the truth and authority of such texts, but those who invoke them to justify their own dissent are missing the point. By the light of faith it is impossible to believe that the authentic papal magisterium will ever teach that marriage is not essentially an indissoluble union between a man and a woman, or that contraceptive and homosexual acts are not intrinsically and morally wrong. There can be no such reforms. Fiducia Supplicans (4) itself makes it clear that such doctrines are inadmissible, and it explicitly affirms that marriage is an “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children.” It also states (11) that “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.”
But it also seems clear that the content of Fiducia Supplicans with its magisterial clarification of the nature of blessings is authoritative, though it is certainly non-irreformable and could be further qualified and clarified. So the primary question is simply whether to assent to it as authoritative, or rather to dissent from it on the basis of personal judgments and interpretations which do not possess the divine assistance given to magisterial teaching. My working assumption in becoming and remaining Catholic is that human reason can always assist the assent of faith and its extension in religious submission to non-infallible magisterial declarations and interpretations. Nevertheless, divine authority, not human reason, is the basis for faith. Even if a person understandably has intellectual difficulties accepting Fiducia Supplicans, dissent from it is unjustified. Legitimate, respectful, and discreet questioning is permitted and does not constitute dissent. I totally agree that everyone would do well to consider and pray about the guidelines given to theologians in Donum Veritatis 27-41 with respect to non-irreformable magisterial teachings. Oremus.