Thank you, Erick and Dr. Chapp for this conversation. This video and the one that you, Dr. Chapp, did with Paul VanderKlay have been a big help to me in making sense of the past month of ecclesial news.
Gentlemen great conversation. Thank you for the clarity of your thinking. To be authentic Catholics we don’t have to be perfect, we have to be humble. We can not separate our lives from the cross, that is reality. The Lord told us “take your cross and fallow me” “ my kingdom is not of this world” I decided to fallow de Lord in the “courage ministry” , for me that has been my liberation. Our culture in the west seems to be, against the natural law. Everything seems to focus on the pursuit of pleasure, which can not bring happiness. We as rational beings are looking for a live based on reality. For me that truth has been the Catholic Church, explained well in the letter “the splendor of the truth” of Pope John Paul II.
PRAY, PRAY, PRAY ---- this is the only solution for those clergy throughout the world who have lost the FAITH for their CONVERSION back to the TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH !!! GOD LOVE YOU !!!!!
I think there are some people in these irregular unions (both gay and straight), who are honestly struggling to live according to the way God calls them to live. They have a real desire to conform to God, but are so steeped in a sinful way of life (and have been for years) that they are finding it difficult to let go of it. I believe that those are the types of people the Vatican has in mind in Fiducia. Not people who are seeking to feel that their sinful way of life is being validated. I see this as Pope Francis trying to go to any length to retrieve the lost sheep and bring it back to the 99, without crossing the the line doctrinally.
You're deluding yourself if you think the point of this document is to help gay people end their relationships. James Martin thinks it's a monumental step forward for gay Catholics -- in other words, a validation of their sinful union.
People like that must be helped by being taught clearly they must END their relationship. Do you think it makes it easier or harder to leave a sin if it's validated in your mind? The sinners of 2023/2024 are no different from all human beings throughout history. The medicine is the same. Speak truthfully like Jesus and not blur the lines because some say, "In that case, it's too hard." This FS has made it harder for those struggling NOT to sin to keep fighting, instead to think "Hey, maybe this is not that bad."
If a sinner desperately wants spiritual strength & spiritual good health, there is a way, a completely acceptable, non-controversial, apostolic, ritualized, sacramental way. It's called CONFESSION. The graces from this Sacrament are life changing. Those in a greater state of serious sin just need to go receive it more frequently. Confession truly works & no Catholic would want to prevent a repentant sinner from receiving it. A blessing cannot do everything a sacrament can.
A pastor with his long term partner, male or female, should ask a blessing from his bishop for the good of that loving relationship. And as the Cardinal Prefect insists, no enquiries about how many beds in the bedroom, assuming the best of it all, celibacy simply means not being married, etc, etc. This is where the Church of England is right now. Perhaps we can look forward to a sharing of this ecumenical initiative and move forward in the Spirit “to infinity and beyond!”
As far as "irregular couples" go, I would've loved for you guys to come at it from less extreme examples, rather than extremes like incestuous or polyamourous ones. For instance, a "remarried" heterosexual couple with kids where one of the members is in an undisolved marriage. Per Familiaris Consortio, can't they stay together but be considered repentant by commiting to a life of abstainance? Surely a tall task for them, but given what the church expects of them... wouldn't it be good to spontaneously bless them as a couple, to encourage them to mature in their valid relationship and fidelity to the gospel so as to avoid invalid, sexual union? This is where I think it is easier for us to see that couples can be considered relationships without seeking to be considered a union. Which, like sex, a union is only valid in marriage. Now in that vein, what about a "married" homosexual couple with kids, potentially from adoption or even surrogacy, who start to consider the truth of the Catholic Church. And say they start meeting with a priest and show an openness to Catholic truth; wouldn't it be pastoral of the priest to recognize that he can't legitimize union (as the only valid form of union is marriage) and so must call for abstinence, but also recognize that there will likely be some form of relationship going forward that they'll have to struggle through, given the children they've been raising?
Before the release of Fiducia Supplicans, Lofton did say that blessings of same sex couples could not be done where the couple presents themselves publicly together to receive the blessing. Because it would cause too much scandal. He even mad a catechism saying this. Once he realized he was wrong, he had to change his interpretation of the most "clear" and "unambiguous" document.
I am also and I remember in the beginning before the Document Lofton did say basically about the dubia on the same topic, [you can bless the sinner and not the sin but they shouldnt and especially not in front of the congregation] and he has said as much every now and then but less lately probably just from fatigue I think
@@Erick_Ybarra If you watch his video on the flemish bishops, he not only said that, but worse, he said you would still be blessing sin, it would surely undermine Church teaching. That there would be no more ground to oppose the blessing of other sins committed as a couple, like incest, that the language of being pastorally close was deceptive, and that such bishops had to be removed from Ministry and replaced with people who understand the very basics of Christianity. Well, Francis has granted all of what the flemish bishops demanded, excepted that the blessing shouldn't be a serious liturgical thing, but only like 15 sec at the corner of the church.
Lol 😂 R&T is struggling these days to explain …only had 3 min video to explain new book controversy 😂don’t have more to explain for the pope explainer!
Erick starts off by explaining how FS gets it "just between the orange cones." I agree. And that's a GOOD thing. I am not a member of the Lofton channel but I give him great credit for his clarity on explaining FS - and his humility in modifying his past stances. I was one of the voices harping from day one that FS is speaking of couples not merely individuals - and that we can distinguish between "couples" and "unions". As for the talk of why go to the peripheries, a certain parable about leaving the 99 for one lost sheep comes quickly to mind. As for all the hypothetical examples of "brothers and sisters" or "men and mistresses" seeking a blessing, I think of the attempts to entrap Jesus with questions of 7 consecutive husbands and one bride finding themselves in a most confusing situation in the afterlife. I remain a fan of Chapp in spite of the places we disagree. In a religion that has always extolled the image of the shepherd, being pastoral is the feature, not the bug.
@@bobjenkins3rd It is tempting to think so! But I think we are merely experiencing the growing pains of a Church coming of age in this brave new world. And yet, Benedict had the vision of a smaller, more faithful body. When we look back upon the glory days of "Christendom", how many were Christian in name only?
@@quayscenes That's just noise saying we are capitulating to an immoral culture. Thankfully, this pope will not be here long & FS will be rightfully repudiated like Honorius' letters which were equally "ambiguous" in order to accommodate heretics.
@@quayscenes beats me but golden days is what sometime 1st millennium? Good question though. Lots of martyrs back then and predates secularism so I’d think there wasn’t anywhere near as many percentage-wise in name only. Especially in places where they were persecuted such as when Jesus made the statement.
@@bobjenkins3rdChristendom is more talking about Catholic civilization including the various political bodies that adhered to the Church. There are many proposed Golden Ages, but something like the turn of the Second Millennium after the Gregorian Reforms or immediately prior to the Protestant Revolution where Catholicism was exported across the globe are good candidates. I know there is a common sentiment amongst Catholics that being "freed" from ecclesiastical involvement in politics and the wholesale separation of church and state is a positive thing, where we can return to the evangelistic spirit of the early Patristics, but truth be told, the best evidence really points against that. I don't see how we are really better off (at least net-positive) than centuries past.
The popesplainers (I'm looking at Lofton here) will not like this. Why? Ybarra rightly points out that their overreaction + ignoring of the inconvenient parts of the document is just as bad as the overreaction + ignoring of inconvenient parts of the document by the RadTrads. Clear and level-headed as always from Ybarra.
I did not see an “overreaction” among the “popesplainers”. They usually just read the actual text with a sober mind and with (what I would call) the proper hermeneutic of continuity.
Great discussion. I’m only 30 minutes in so far, but I have to say that I have a deep suspicion that the root cause of this entire movement is the (probably) very large number of SSA priests over the many decades. Likely some of which are or have been good friends of Pope Francis. Purely speculation on my part, which I can’t prove, but it rings true, at least to me.
As a “popesplainer” I expected to find myself vehemently disagreeing with Chapp and Ybarra. After watching the discussion I feel instead that they did a good job explaining their perspective even though I do not share it.
A popesplainer is just the inverse of the radtrad. No doubt Taylor Marshall also thinks they "did a good job explaining their perspective". Both are wrong.
Dr. Chapp really put the finger on the issue, the reason why a certain resistance is allowed within filial obedience is so that we don't normalize abusive practices for the next pontificates. Francis himself is disrespecting his office. When discussing on sedition in the summa, Thomas Aquinas points out that in the situation of an abusive tyrant, he himself is responsible for the sedition of his subjects, and can be legitimately deposed if we are sure this can be achieved without causing greater harm. ML has become the guru of a sect, he does not understand the political logics that exist within the Church. His vehement attacks against anyone doubting would only be reasonable if a charism of impeccability had been promised by Christ in addition to the infallible teaching office.
Good lord, I love you brothers and God bless you, but at 1:10:25 when Larry says “can you really say the Holy Spirit is strongly guiding the prudential judgments of the pope” it struck me as if he were saying “did God really say that?” Not that Donum Veritatis is inspired Scripture, but they’re basically saying “I don’t agree with this church document, can we have a new one?” Maybe the difference between the media ecosystems of then and today would justify a new document but am I to follow this example as an obedient son of the church? Can I also ask for new documents because of changes in the modern world?
Ascending blessing praise God, descending blessings ask God for grace. 'Blessings' in the colloquial sense approve something. The document refers to the second type, not the first, and explicitly not the third.
You suggested the document gives tacit approval of this lifestyle. On the contrary, it explicitly mentions calling down actual grace so that those upon whom these blessings are bestowed may 'be freed from their imperfections and frailties' and 'grow in fidelity to the Gospel'.
See Cardinal Sarah on truth. Not necessary to explain; truth is what charity is all about not negotiating or explaining heresy, our bodies are supposed to be a living SACRIFICE holy and acceptable to God. It's not charity to lie and say it's ok to bless SIN.
@@Erick_Ybarra Dear Erick, Would I be safe to assume that you reviewed Romans 2? Hey man, you said ‘hypocrisy’. While that might actually be an apt word for a part of my thought here, it clearly is not the only word we might draw out. The frustrating aspect to me is that so many people that use Romans 1 as a prooftext to say ‘see? Being gay is a sin. It says it right there’. Now, I am not questioning the aspect of the sin. Yet at the same time, to use this as an anti-gay prooftext is, to my simple mind, such an egregious contextual error. If you don’t agree, would you recommend that we just ignore our potential guilt of any one of the litany of sins that flow from the sin of said homosexuality? (i.e. wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.) The question I would ask you, or anyone that wishes to use Romans 1 as an anti-gay prooftext, are you guilty of any of these things? Maybe rebellious to parents? Maybe scandalmonger? Maybe haughty, boastful? Or maybe the crown jewel; gossip?
If so, how are divorced couples accommodated? How does this new situation inform our understanding of annulment? When is a marriage not a marriage and do those we really understand the limits? For instance abusive relationships etc
Church teaching and continued with Amoris Laetitia is that the couple lives as siblings, is celibate and then can get Reconciliation (confession) and the Eucharist. This is a continuation of that as the application of this for heterosexual couples also applies to homosexual couples. Paragraph 31 gets into this when it talks about “relationship maturity”, which is celibacy in Catholicism with this situation as taught by St Paul. Celibacy is the “chastity” the Catechism mentions as being what homosexual “persons” should strive for. The Catechism does say “persons”, plural. CCC 2357 I believe. The sex act in your example and in homosexuality are the sins. Not their relationship because of the church in its mercy teaches that the couple can be celibate, which means they are not sinning. Then they can go to confession and are not in a state of sin. The church is not seeking to punish people that might accomplish the goal of celibacy. This all avoids two sins: rash judgment/evil suspicion in 1 Tim 6:5 and being unmerciful, James 2:13.
Great conversation! As Cardinal Muller said on FS: “God cannot send his grace upon a relationship that is directly opposed to him and cannot be ordered toward him. Sexual intercourse outside of marriage, cannot bring people closer to God and therefore cannot open itself to God's blessing. Therefore, if this blessing were given, its only effect would be to confuse the people who receive it or who attend it. They would think that God has blessed what He cannot bless. This “pastoral” blessing would be neither pastoral nor a blessing” “It is claimed that there are “positive elements” in the (sinful) relationships and that these can be blessed, but these positive elements (for example, that one helps the other in an illness) are secondary to the relationship itself-whose defining characteristic is the sharing of sexual activity-and these elements do not change the nature of this relationship, which in no case can be directed towards God” ''Blessing a reality that is contrary to creation is not only impossible, it is blasphemy.''
Where I'd disagree with Muller is, he's saying "the defining characteristics is sexual union", and this is not fair for every couple. Case in point, a divorced and remarried couple with kids. The church has granted they can stay in "relationship", but cannot have sexual "union". They aren't seen as a valid union, but the church doesn't require that they end any and all relationship that exists, and we'd honestly probably still be fine calling them a "couple". Because all marriages are couples, but not all couples are marriages. And those that aren't can't legitimize sex. Also keep in mind, this "living in abstinence together" would be the repentance requirement for confession and receiving the Eucharist. Wouldn't we expect a spontaneous blessing of the couple to have looser moral prerequisites than sacraments like confession and Eucharist? If this couple was considering converting and was meeting with a priest about it, would it be that crazy to expect the priest to bless them as a couple? Again, it's not like he's giving pre-converte the Eucharist.
Hi Guys, how do we continue after this? Is the issue about splitting a form ie a union, one bit of the form good another sinful? is this asking for a theologically Aristotelian solution?,
I think the bishops of Africa set a good example: clarify you're in communion with the Pope and that applying FS would cause scandal so they won't apply it. The document leaves it to the bishops, meaning they could all render it a dead letter.
@@liraco_mxThe Bishops are in the position that if they are caught giving this blessing, the person blessed can be executed. The church is responsible in its applications of its disciplines.
At this point, I don't see any reason not to include them. "The Church should not exclude those who are in the margins of margins. Consanguinity is a serious issue, it was the main cause of marriage invalidity in the past and still is a problem in many places. We must not condemn as we did in the past but accompany. Incestuous relationships have a lot of good elements in them. You have no idea how strong the natural familial bound can be in those relationships. An u**le who had relations with his n**ce will let her remember him everyday for the rest of her life. Giving them a blessing together as a couple may help perfect their relations grow into chastity." I deeply apologize for the disgusting aspect of the satire, especially if it does not help a popesplainer understand why there's something wrong with FS.
In theory there wouldn't be anything against Church doctrine for a blessing to be given to such a couple. Of course the purpose of which would be to encourage the return to chastity and a true sibling relationship. Remember the blessing is not a legitimation of the union and is meant to help the individuals to fully do God's will. Obviously anything criminal would need to be reported and situations of abuse would not be given blessings as it would be pastorally inappropriate in practice.
While I’m glad you bring up the intrinsic connection between sexual immorality and idolatry, we can’t accuse Pope Francis of inconsistency. Remember Pachamama?
“Abram settled in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled among the cities of the Plain, pitching his tents near Sodom.” (Gn 13:12) NOT a very “prudential judgment” on Lot’s part. 🤷♂️ As a culture we have become desensitized to homosexuality to a greater or lesser extent because it is literally celebrated in the public sphere. That is why the same people would cringe at the thought of the Church blessing incestuous couples but not same-sex couples. Incest isn’t publicly accepted…yet. That’s the problem with taking moral positions based on cultural acceptance. It changes. The truth, on the other hand, does NOT change. I don’t believe that the moral position of the Catholic Church on homosexual acts has been changed by Fiducia Supplicans, but definitely compromised to a certain extent.
There’s a church tax in Germany. All Germans who are registered as Catholics, Protestants or Jews pay a religious tax on their annual income tax bill. If you don’t pay, you must make an official declaration that you’re leaving the faith. The tax is 8-9% of one’s income. There’s more info on the My German Expert website.
So in other words, the church is guaranteed the money, unlike in the US (or elsewhere I suppose) where you can decide not to give, on principle or for whatever reason
FS allows for blessing of people in an incestous relationship: they are in "an irregular situation:. It can be argued, however, that it doesn't allow for blessings of people in a polygamous relationship becaue they are not "a couple". What I would like to see is an investigation as to the process behind this "innovation", this "new understanding" of blessings. Has it just come out of thin air, the brain of Cdl Fernandez as it were, or can he point to a long period of "discernment" on the issue and to numerous theologians, over a long period of time, who have been developing this "new understanding"?
It's made-up. What investigations do you need? Fernandez and the pope think it's a brilliant solution, but they're thinking like politicians trying to maintain party affiliation instead of a religion that exists to state truth clearly, like Jesus did, without fear that some would walk away because it's too "hard" a teaching.
I was with you until the Co2 comment. Some (like the great environmentalist Patrick Moore) say Co2 is effectively greening the earth, and he and many others say there is no correlation (let alone causation) between Co2 and warming, so not sure how driving a high Co2 car would be sinful. Very strange to have that added on to a list of obviously morally wrong things.
I believe Erick makes a crucial mistake at 10:55 when he says the object of the blessing is not only the persons but also "clearly" the "good elements of the relationship". Where on earth is he getting this?? 😂 I've read the document many times and no where is it "clear" that there is somehow a secondary object of the blessing. According the paragraph 31, the only object is PEOPLE "who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, etc". Just because the PEOPLE being blessed "beg" for help and healing in their lives and relationships doesn't somehow make OBJECT of the blessing their entire lives or relationships. Anything that happens in their relationships (such as healing, or fidelity to the Gospel) would be the EFFECT of the blessing not the object. Also, didn't the Church already teach in 2021 that we can't bless the "good parts" of a same-sex relationship? Why are we pretending that's what's happening? The document doesn't say that.
Hi! Erick here. Thanks for watching and for being perceptive. So let me share with you why I think the "good elements" of the same-sex relationship, among other things, are the object of blessing. In the first place, the persons are always going to be the direct object. There is no way to bless someone's virtue of kindness without first coming through the person in whom said virtue inheres. So there is no way to directly bless "positive elements" of a relationship without blessing the persons in that relationship as a matter of logical priority. Let's look at paragraph 31, and I'll put into bold where a pause/reflection should be paid: "[...] 𝑎 𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑎𝑦 𝑏𝑒 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐺𝑜𝑑 𝒖𝒑𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒔𝒆 [persons] 𝑤ℎ𝑜-𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑖𝑠 ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑝-𝑑𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑚 𝑎 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒐𝒘𝒏 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒔, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑏𝑒𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒆, 𝒈𝒐𝒐𝒅, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒉𝒖𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒑𝒔 𝒃𝒆 𝒆𝒏𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒅, 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒆𝒅, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒗𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒃𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑯𝒐𝒍𝒚 𝑺𝒑𝒊𝒓𝒊𝒕 [...] 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒎𝒂𝒚 𝒃𝒆 𝒇𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒅 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒇𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒔, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒎𝒂𝒚 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓-𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒅𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝒍𝒐𝒗𝒆." (31) So from the start, we can all agree that the blessing descends from God upon the persons of the couple. However, if we are to ask Fernandez, "to what do these blessings aim to do?". Fernandez answers: "to enrich all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships." Very well. It is obvious that "their relationships" involves the most pertinent one which is between the 2 gays persons themselves. We have confirmation of this in the interview Fernandez gave to the Pillar. There, he says: "𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒, 𝑏𝑦 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒘𝒐 𝒑𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑙𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑖𝑡, 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑠𝑘 𝐺𝑜𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒉, 𝒑𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒆, 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚-𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑤𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑎𝑠𝑘 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑎𝑠𝑘 𝑓𝑜𝑟. 𝑨𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆, 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒌 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒚 𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒔𝒆 𝒕𝒘𝒐 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒐𝒏𝒔, 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒊𝒔 𝒔𝒊𝒏, 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒂𝒚 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎 [𝒕𝒐 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒆𝒊𝒗𝒆] 𝒂 𝒔𝒑𝒊𝒓𝒊𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒅𝒊𝒂𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒖𝒆, 𝒑𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆, 𝒎𝒖𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝒉𝒆𝒍𝒑 [...] 𝐴𝑠 𝐼 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑎𝑦𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑡, 𝑜𝑛 𝑎 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒, 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑝𝑙𝑒, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝒘𝒉𝒐 𝒔𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒈𝒐𝒐𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒔, 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 ℎ𝑎𝑑 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛𝑜𝑤 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑎 𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒃𝒆𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒎𝒖𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝒉𝒆𝒍𝒑 [...] 𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑎𝑠𝑘𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝒇𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒑 𝒃𝒆 𝒑𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒅, 𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒇𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑮𝒐𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒍." So you see here that the blessing is for the persons, just like any blessing would be that descends to a sinner for help, but the aim of the blessing is to enrich elements IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP which are goodies rather than badies. This might not even be repentance. It could be a "spirit of dialogue" , "patience", and "mutual help" between the two persons. So I think you need to take all of this into account. The blessing does come to persons. There is no other way to bless "elements" of a relationship without first going to the persons.
Dear @@Erick_Ybarra, thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply! You still have yet to prove that the positive elements of the relationship are the OBJECT of the blessing. You have only argued that AIM of the blessing is to rich elements in their relationships and lives, etc. We need to make a distinction between blessing a positive element of a sinful relationship and HOPING/PRAYING/AIMING that good things happen in their life as RESULT of the blessing (such as healing, fidelity to the gospel, etc). I would also argue that even the positive "elements" of a relationship are not the object of the blessing. Someone else may have a better way of articulating this, but is it even possible to bless someone's "fidelity"? Can a priest bless someone's "desire for holiness"? How is it even possible to bless an "element"? To me, that is why we actually bless the persons, with the aim/desire that their relationship is enriched, healed, etc. Happy to discuss further so that we can both come to a further understanding of the truth.
@@jmj.thomas Thanks. So I do think the persons are the direct object. There is no way to directly get to an inhering virtue without the person. The accident of good inheres a person, and so there really is no way to speak about blessing "good elements" directly. However, there is a way to speak about having a purpose for said blessing to persons, and Fernandez (and FS) make it very clear that the purpose of said blessing to persons is to enrich everything that is good in their relationships, obviously including the same-sex relationship. Fernandez confirms this in his Pillar interview when he hits the goodness that exists in mutuality*. Also, when I speak of the "good elements" as object, I just mean that this is the aim of the blessing. In a sense, this is perfectly fine because this would be precisely what exists if 2 gays decide to repent and walk away from each other. However, the problem with FS and with Fernandez (and obviously Pope Francis) is that they are envisioning an enrichment of virtues between 2 gays *while they endure in the evil of a same sex relationship. That is obvious from the text of FS and all clarificatory documents.
@@Erick_Ybarra Thank you for at least making a destination between "direct object" of the blessing and "object", and for admitting that the persons are the direct object. However, when you speak of "good elements" as the object, you are completely misleading people! Just say the "aim" of the blessing! That way, there's no issue! We agree that it's perfectly fine to have the "aim" of enriching their lives, relationship, fidelity to the Gospel, etc. I am asking this as genuinely as possible and am not trying to gaslight, but where are you getting the idea that Pope Francis, Cardinal Ferndanzes, and the document itself is "envisioning an richment of virtues between 2 gays *WHILE THEY ENDURE IN EVIL*? Everything I've read points to the contrary! Obviously, the entire point of the blessing is that they would turn away from evil, conform their life to God's Will! The document says this.
Francis' approach, which is a typical Jesuit approach, goes back to the early 17th century. Pascal wrote about this Jesuit method of pastoral ministry, especially as it relates to the moral law of God, in his "Provincial Letters"
I listened to the first 36 minutes and didn’t hear anything on the blessing being spontaneous in your examples. It’s late and Ill have to listen more later. But the examples you gave are not consistent with what the document was saying about the requirement that these be spontaneous. Archbishop Fernandez even noted in his further explanation that these blessings should only be a few seconds long and your examples were well beyond these requirements.
I think you are not giving adequate thinking to what spontaneous might be. It will always involve a plan. Even if it is a gay couple at a Mass where they know the Church performs these blessings. If a priest announces he will do this on request, it will always involve a plan, even if within 1 hour or 5 hours.
- CCC 2357 teaches that the sin is the sex act. Homosexuality itself is not a sin. The “grave depravity” are the “homosexual acts”. - 2458: Homosexuals must be treated with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” - 2359: Homosexual PERSONS are called to chastity.” The assumption from critics is that all homosexual couples are in a state of sin. What about the couples “persons” that are practicing chastity? How are the ones practicing chastity, celibacy, being treated with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” if we are lumping them all together as sinners? The sin is the sex act, not their sexual preference. Paragraph 31 mentions that the “relationship matures”. This is chastity and celibacy as taught by St Paul. Where in the document does it say these couples can have sex and get the blessing? How does such a person fit with the person described in paragraphs 8-10, 20 and 31? The person the document describes is not seeking to sin. If one cannot find where the document says sin can be blessed, how is this argument not a strawman? According to the Catechism, we cannot assume they are sinning. That is the sin of rash judgment in 2477. How can one assume the couple is in a state of sin if they might be practicing chastity per our Catechism?
A popesplainer is a person that seeks to follow the Catholic Sacred Tradition that we form our conscious from the church and the Magisterium, which is the Pope and the Bishops who submit to him. We do not form our conscious based on our own understanding. That is an error some Protestant teach.
Popesplaining is a particular position within catholic opinions that stipulates the Church is always acting good because of the goodness of its divine institution. The Church is always good, and therefore it is always right to follow her decisions because she is fighting the evils of this world without being itself subjected to evils in some sense. It is very manichean, it does not understand that there exist intermediary positions. It is not pragmatic because it denies the legitimacy of conscience. How many times since Vatican II have we not heard that we should not disobey our conscience! Furthermore, it tacitly poses that obedience extend to the internal forum - which is wrong, there has never been any obedience to the internal forum, even for those who took a religious vow. Take Peter Canisius. In Germany, he convinced the roman legates not to apply the orders they had received from the Apostolic See because these orders were simply dumb. I think it is Ignace of Loyola who hid in his pocket the papal bull commanding the immediate excommunication of any protestant who'd refuse to return to the Catholic faith after a first preaching, while himself was preaching them for the second, third times. Rome's discipline was dumb, because after more preaching, those scandalized Germans eventually realized the misconstruction of protestant arguments and returned massively to the faith, while strictly applying Rome's discipline would have obviously made them more obstinate and kept them away from the catholic faith. What can be the explanation of their attitude, if not that they had sensed, BY THEIR PRIVATE JUDGMENT, that the commandment of charity towards our neighbor can be superior to that of the pope, and that it would be evil for them to not follow their conscience. This is the parable Jesus taught us about the Good Samaritan - the reason the Levites did not help the man, is because if they touch blood, they would be impure for the entire day, and thus wouldn't be able to fulfill the sacrifices and rituals mandated by the Law, which came from God. Pope Francis actually said something interesting once in regard to popesplaining in general. He said, sometimes it is impossible to keep a commandment of the Church without committing a sin. It provoked many scandal among thomistic theologians, but it should really be meditated why.
As to Pope Francis not wanting to change church teaching. No, he does not want to change it. He wants to ignore it. He wants to pretend it does not exist, and then allow every priest to act as if it does not exist, therefore every priest can do whatever he wants. This is enough to cause the destruction of the Catholic church, and its degeneration into another Episcopalian church. If you imagine that Pope Francis wants to destroy the Catholic church, all of his actions suddenly make sense.
I actually are we should go back to chaste vs non-chaste, instead of LGBT. Because the whole reason that there's even social presence and discourse about homosexuality etc. is because there's already been loosening of sexual morals overall!! With the prevalence of non-marital sex which is by the majority of population now considered normal... I know many Catholic who are very much against gay issues, but when the topics comes to divorce, new relationship/'marriage' afterwards, they suddenly become much more lenient.🤷♀️ I think we should go back to conceptualizing the non-marital sexual relations for what they are: fornication. Go to the basics.
I always wonder why some Catholic reactionaries put their eggs in this basket. Is it their sin in specific? I guess as a married straight man I just don't get it. It's just not an issue that weighs on my mind. God transforms us over time and I have sins I have to work out yet. Does the principle of subsidiarity come into play on this issue? Or what Ivan Illich called a philosophy on soil?
Everything is tied together. I can put it another way to avoid PC topics. There is a crisis of love. Too many married heterosexual couples don’t even know what sex is and they approach each other as a hole to masturbate with or an object to assist achieving orgasm. You can absolutely follow the dictionary definition of sex and reproduce while doing nothing more than masturbate or attempting to perceive it as such. This of course is the logical result of a materialist view of the world. As to the issue at hand, it sends a signal among others that the church is a follower of the world at a precise point in time where the world is diametrically opposed to the church.
Root cause to me is one of the scandals of the "Church". (No, I am not Roman - nor having excessive loyalty to any other tradition - except to the mystery of Christ) I am not speaking of that old temptation of gnosticism. It is the scandal of not loving our neighbor - or ourselves. Our inability to, in act-uality, love the sinner and hate the sin. Thus the "Church" (pick your tradition), finds itself trapped in the false dicotomy of either driving the sinner away, or embracing (rationalyzing/ relativizing) the sin that destroys our neighbor and ourselves. Love is speaking the Truth of the dangers while having a deep empathy for our profound weaknesses. Lord, have mercy.
A gay couple comes to a priest and says, "Father, we understand the Churches teaching on same sex unions, but our relationship is different. The love we share is real & we want to dedicate our lives to each other. Can you give us a blessing to sacramentalize our relationship?" According to FS the priest is obliged to say, "No, God does not bless sin." A gay couple comes to a priest & says, "Father, we understand the Churches teaching on same sex unions. But we don't know what to do. Can you give us a blessing that God may help us break this oppression to sin?" According to FS the priest may choose to help them turn their lives around.
Tell that to James Martin. And seriously, let's be honest. No gay couple is going to seek a blessing to help them end their relationship. They're going to have their relationship validated.
Very simple, "I will pray for you to come separately. By your insistence that you need a blessing upon the two of you is a sign you aren't even interested in the right way"
@@3ggshe11s true, but FS says the Church can't/won't validate their relationship. The only thing the Church can & will do is help people live holier lives.
@@knowbody6441 if they are docile, welcome them to the office for counseling. Definitely pray for them. But you are not really being fair to the capacity of FS. The dialogue you gave sounds like a humble gay couple who want to separate. Well, if that is the case, they would also respect that their being together is a massive scandal. They would respect going to a private office for counseling and a promise of the priest's prayers. But not demand for an open blessing upon both together.
the good ol' 'it lacks clarity" stance.. take that same stance in everything in the bible then. if the bible was clear then we wouldnt have so many heresies... Critique the word of God the same way then. what a constant bad take. everythings clear and if its not then maybe theres some sin deranging the mind
I’m not sure indulging damaged people in their disordered habits sets them on the path to healing. FS has already led to this, with no correction from Rome as far as I have seen. Hard not to see that as a feature rather than a bug of this document. Can you specify how you think FS will help?
Just stumbled upon this conversation. Probably the best explanation I’ve heard so far. Thank you gentlemen. God bless you both
Thank you, Erick and Dr. Chapp for this conversation. This video and the one that you, Dr. Chapp, did with Paul VanderKlay have been a big help to me in making sense of the past month of ecclesial news.
Gentlemen great conversation. Thank you for the clarity of your thinking. To be authentic Catholics we don’t have to be perfect, we have to be humble. We can not separate our lives from the cross, that is reality. The Lord told us “take your cross and fallow me” “ my kingdom is not of this world”
I decided to fallow de Lord in the “courage ministry” , for me that has been my liberation. Our culture in the west seems to be, against the natural law. Everything seems to focus on the pursuit of pleasure, which can not bring happiness. We as rational beings are looking for a live based on reality. For me that truth has been the Catholic Church, explained well in the letter “the splendor of the truth” of Pope John Paul II.
Brilliant discussion. Probably the best I've heard on this topic. Great job fellas!
Great stuff. I am really impressed with Ybarra's presentation and his rhetorical improvements over time.
PRAY, PRAY, PRAY ---- this is the only solution for those clergy throughout the world who have lost the FAITH for their CONVERSION back to the TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH !!! GOD LOVE YOU !!!!!
I think there are some people in these irregular unions (both gay and straight), who are honestly struggling to live according to the way God calls them to live. They have a real desire to conform to God, but are so steeped in a sinful way of life (and have been for years) that they are finding it difficult to let go of it. I believe that those are the types of people the Vatican has in mind in Fiducia. Not people who are seeking to feel that their sinful way of life is being validated. I see this as Pope Francis trying to go to any length to retrieve the lost sheep and bring it back to the 99, without crossing the the line doctrinally.
You're deluding yourself if you think the point of this document is to help gay people end their relationships. James Martin thinks it's a monumental step forward for gay Catholics -- in other words, a validation of their sinful union.
People like that must be helped by being taught clearly they must END their relationship. Do you think it makes it easier or harder to leave a sin if it's validated in your mind? The sinners of 2023/2024 are no different from all human beings throughout history. The medicine is the same. Speak truthfully like Jesus and not blur the lines because some say, "In that case, it's too hard." This FS has made it harder for those struggling NOT to sin to keep fighting, instead to think "Hey, maybe this is not that bad."
If you bring your boyfriend to church as a man you are not seeking repentance
If a sinner desperately wants spiritual strength & spiritual good health, there is a way, a completely acceptable, non-controversial, apostolic, ritualized, sacramental way.
It's called CONFESSION.
The graces from this Sacrament are life changing.
Those in a greater state of serious sin just need to go receive it more frequently.
Confession truly works & no Catholic would want to prevent a repentant sinner from receiving it.
A blessing cannot do everything a sacrament can.
The problem is that in the practical order it amounts to a change of doctrine and that's more nefarious than flat out saying doctrine must change.
Great interview. I've been wondering too what the response would be if we were to apply these blessings to more extreme situations.
A pastor with his long term partner, male or female, should ask a blessing from his bishop for the good of that loving relationship. And as the Cardinal Prefect insists, no enquiries about how many beds in the bedroom, assuming the best of it all, celibacy simply means not being married, etc, etc.
This is where the Church of England is right now. Perhaps we can look forward to a sharing of this ecumenical initiative and move forward in the Spirit “to infinity and beyond!”
As far as "irregular couples" go, I would've loved for you guys to come at it from less extreme examples, rather than extremes like incestuous or polyamourous ones.
For instance, a "remarried" heterosexual couple with kids where one of the members is in an undisolved marriage. Per Familiaris Consortio, can't they stay together but be considered repentant by commiting to a life of abstainance? Surely a tall task for them, but given what the church expects of them... wouldn't it be good to spontaneously bless them as a couple, to encourage them to mature in their valid relationship and fidelity to the gospel so as to avoid invalid, sexual union? This is where I think it is easier for us to see that couples can be considered relationships without seeking to be considered a union. Which, like sex, a union is only valid in marriage.
Now in that vein, what about a "married" homosexual couple with kids, potentially from adoption or even surrogacy, who start to consider the truth of the Catholic Church. And say they start meeting with a priest and show an openness to Catholic truth; wouldn't it be pastoral of the priest to recognize that he can't legitimize union (as the only valid form of union is marriage) and so must call for abstinence, but also recognize that there will likely be some form of relationship going forward that they'll have to struggle through, given the children they've been raising?
Excellent! I'm a Lofton's patron, but I've lost him on this issue. If at least he had said it was scandalous...
Before the release of Fiducia Supplicans, Lofton did say that blessings of same sex couples could not be done where the couple presents themselves publicly together to receive the blessing. Because it would cause too much scandal. He even mad a catechism saying this. Once he realized he was wrong, he had to change his interpretation of the most "clear" and "unambiguous" document.
I am also and I remember in the beginning before the Document Lofton did say basically about the dubia on the same topic, [you can bless the sinner and not the sin but they shouldnt and especially not in front of the congregation]
and he has said as much every now and then but less lately probably just from fatigue I think
Getting red-pilled is good.
Lofton has become insufferable.
@@Erick_Ybarra If you watch his video on the flemish bishops, he not only said that, but worse, he said you would still be blessing sin, it would surely undermine Church teaching. That there would be no more ground to oppose the blessing of other sins committed as a couple, like incest, that the language of being pastorally close was deceptive, and that such bishops had to be removed from Ministry and replaced with people who understand the very basics of Christianity. Well, Francis has granted all of what the flemish bishops demanded, excepted that the blessing shouldn't be a serious liturgical thing, but only like 15 sec at the corner of the church.
Great discussion. Next R&T making 3 hour analysis to explain it. Especially citing Canon 21 of 869.
Lol 😂 R&T is struggling these days to explain …only had 3 min video to explain new book controversy 😂don’t have more to explain for the pope explainer!
How can the sheep reform an abusive Shepard?
Erick starts off by explaining how FS gets it "just between the orange cones." I agree. And that's a GOOD thing. I am not a member of the Lofton channel but I give him great credit for his clarity on explaining FS - and his humility in modifying his past stances. I was one of the voices harping from day one that FS is speaking of couples not merely individuals - and that we can distinguish between "couples" and "unions". As for the talk of why go to the peripheries, a certain parable about leaving the 99 for one lost sheep comes quickly to mind. As for all the hypothetical examples of "brothers and sisters" or "men and mistresses" seeking a blessing, I think of the attempts to entrap Jesus with questions of 7 consecutive husbands and one bride finding themselves in a most confusing situation in the afterlife. I remain a fan of Chapp in spite of the places we disagree. In a religion that has always extolled the image of the shepherd, being pastoral is the feature, not the bug.
Unfortunately, I think today it’s more like 1 and 99, not 99 and 1 which is a whole other mode of operation.
@@bobjenkins3rd It is tempting to think so! But I think we are merely experiencing the growing pains of a Church coming of age in this brave new world. And yet, Benedict had the vision of a smaller, more faithful body. When we look back upon the glory days of "Christendom", how many were Christian in name only?
@@quayscenes That's just noise saying we are capitulating to an immoral culture. Thankfully, this pope will not be here long & FS will be rightfully repudiated like Honorius' letters which were equally "ambiguous" in order to accommodate heretics.
@@quayscenes beats me but golden days is what sometime 1st millennium? Good question though. Lots of martyrs back then and predates secularism so I’d think there wasn’t anywhere near as many percentage-wise in name only. Especially in places where they were persecuted such as when Jesus made the statement.
@@bobjenkins3rdChristendom is more talking about Catholic civilization including the various political bodies that adhered to the Church. There are many proposed Golden Ages, but something like the turn of the Second Millennium after the Gregorian Reforms or immediately prior to the Protestant Revolution where Catholicism was exported across the globe are good candidates.
I know there is a common sentiment amongst Catholics that being "freed" from ecclesiastical involvement in politics and the wholesale separation of church and state is a positive thing, where we can return to the evangelistic spirit of the early Patristics, but truth be told, the best evidence really points against that. I don't see how we are really better off (at least net-positive) than centuries past.
The popesplainers (I'm looking at Lofton here) will not like this. Why? Ybarra rightly points out that their overreaction + ignoring of the inconvenient parts of the document is just as bad as the overreaction + ignoring of inconvenient parts of the document by the RadTrads. Clear and level-headed as always from Ybarra.
I did not see an “overreaction” among the “popesplainers”. They usually just read the actual text with a sober mind and with (what I would call) the proper hermeneutic of continuity.
@@Volaer1 "They usually just read the actual text with a sober mind and with the proper hermeneutic of continuity" *sighs* Did you watch the video?
@@Joeonline26 You have a right to disagree but I maintain what I wrote.
@@Volaer1😂😂😂😂😂
@@GuadalupePicasso interesting. You are the 2nd user who is not able to respond other than by using emojis.
Great video Erik and Larry explaining the Jesuit Jedi mind tricks goin on right now 🤣👍 pray for pope Francis and our Catholic Church ⛪️ ✝️☦️🙏
Great discussion. I’m only 30 minutes in so far, but I have to say that I have a deep suspicion that the root cause of this entire movement is the (probably) very large number of SSA priests over the many decades. Likely some of which are or have been good friends of Pope Francis. Purely speculation on my part, which I can’t prove, but it rings true, at least to me.
As a “popesplainer” I expected to find myself vehemently disagreeing with Chapp and Ybarra. After watching the discussion I feel instead that they did a good job explaining their perspective even though I do not share it.
A popesplainer is just the inverse of the radtrad. No doubt Taylor Marshall also thinks they "did a good job explaining their perspective". Both are wrong.
@@Joeonline26you have the right to think so.
Thanks for listening. I know it takes patience to hear the other side.
Dr. Chapp really put the finger on the issue, the reason why a certain resistance is allowed within filial obedience is so that we don't normalize abusive practices for the next pontificates. Francis himself is disrespecting his office. When discussing on sedition in the summa, Thomas Aquinas points out that in the situation of an abusive tyrant, he himself is responsible for the sedition of his subjects, and can be legitimately deposed if we are sure this can be achieved without causing greater harm. ML has become the guru of a sect, he does not understand the political logics that exist within the Church. His vehement attacks against anyone doubting would only be reasonable if a charism of impeccability had been promised by Christ in addition to the infallible teaching office.
@@Iesu-Christi-Servusa pope can not be deposed
The spirit of schism and the hermeneutic of suspicion are thriving in Catholicism today i see. Mary bless and protect our Holy Father Pope Francis 🙏❤
Can you bless the church that is dealing with this because of Francis? You skip over that fact
@@ZaShiesty didn't skip over anything friend.
@@SonOfThineHandmaidlets pray for both, sorry I was being rude.
@@ZaShiesty no worries! Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
The negative side of authoritarian community is Stockholm syndrome
Good lord, I love you brothers and God bless you, but at 1:10:25 when Larry says “can you really say the Holy Spirit is strongly guiding the prudential judgments of the pope” it struck me as if he were saying “did God really say that?” Not that Donum Veritatis is inspired Scripture, but they’re basically saying “I don’t agree with this church document, can we have a new one?” Maybe the difference between the media ecosystems of then and today would justify a new document but am I to follow this example as an obedient son of the church? Can I also ask for new documents because of changes in the modern world?
surely pastoral documents are not the place to reach for good systematic theology hence the need to consider the confusion in fiduccia
Ascending blessing praise God, descending blessings ask God for grace. 'Blessings' in the colloquial sense approve something. The document refers to the second type, not the first, and explicitly not the third.
Those distinctions do not interact with anything we said.
You suggested the document gives tacit approval of this lifestyle. On the contrary, it explicitly mentions calling down actual grace so that those upon whom these blessings are bestowed may 'be freed from their imperfections and frailties' and 'grow in fidelity to the Gospel'.
This talk gave me peace between all the madness of the popesplainers and the rad trads
See Cardinal Sarah on truth. Not necessary to explain; truth is what charity is all about not negotiating or explaining heresy, our bodies are supposed to be a living SACRIFICE holy and acceptable to God. It's not charity to lie and say it's ok to bless SIN.
It just mystifies me how Romans 1 can be used as a prooftext 45:22 without also invoking Romans 2.
What do you mean? The statements on hypocrisy?
@@Erick_Ybarra Dear Erick, Would I be safe to assume that you reviewed Romans 2? Hey man, you said ‘hypocrisy’. While that might actually be an apt word for a part of my thought here, it clearly is not the only word we might draw out.
The frustrating aspect to me is that so many people that use Romans 1 as a prooftext to say ‘see? Being gay is a sin. It says it right there’. Now, I am not questioning the aspect of the sin. Yet at the same time, to use this as an anti-gay prooftext is, to my simple mind, such an egregious contextual error.
If you don’t agree, would you recommend that we just ignore our potential guilt of any one of the litany of sins that flow from the sin of said homosexuality? (i.e. wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.) The question I would ask you, or anyone that wishes to use Romans 1 as an anti-gay prooftext, are you guilty of any of these things? Maybe rebellious to parents? Maybe scandalmonger? Maybe haughty, boastful? Or maybe the crown jewel; gossip?
If so, how are divorced couples accommodated? How does this new situation inform our understanding of annulment? When is a marriage not a marriage and do those we really understand the limits? For instance abusive relationships etc
Church teaching and continued with Amoris Laetitia is that the couple lives as siblings, is celibate and then can get Reconciliation (confession) and the Eucharist. This is a continuation of that as the application of this for heterosexual couples also applies to homosexual couples. Paragraph 31 gets into this when it talks about “relationship maturity”, which is celibacy in Catholicism with this situation as taught by St Paul. Celibacy is the “chastity” the Catechism mentions as being what homosexual “persons” should strive for. The Catechism does say “persons”, plural. CCC 2357 I believe.
The sex act in your example and in homosexuality are the sins. Not their relationship because of the church in its mercy teaches that the couple can be celibate, which means they are not sinning. Then they can go to confession and are not in a state of sin.
The church is not seeking to punish people that might accomplish the goal of celibacy.
This all avoids two sins: rash judgment/evil suspicion in 1 Tim 6:5 and being unmerciful, James 2:13.
We will know this by its fruits.
Great conversation!
As Cardinal Muller said on FS:
“God cannot send his grace upon a relationship that is directly opposed to him and cannot be ordered toward him. Sexual intercourse outside of marriage, cannot bring people closer to God and therefore cannot open itself to God's blessing. Therefore, if this blessing were given, its only effect would be to confuse the people who receive it or who attend it. They would think that God has blessed what He cannot bless. This “pastoral” blessing would be neither pastoral nor a blessing”
“It is claimed that there are “positive elements” in the (sinful) relationships and that these can be blessed, but these positive elements (for example, that one helps the other in an illness) are secondary to the relationship itself-whose defining characteristic is the sharing of sexual activity-and these elements do not change the nature of this relationship, which in no case can be directed towards God” ''Blessing a reality that is contrary to creation is not only impossible, it is blasphemy.''
where is it claimed these elements are the objects of the blessing?
Where I'd disagree with Muller is, he's saying "the defining characteristics is sexual union", and this is not fair for every couple.
Case in point, a divorced and remarried couple with kids. The church has granted they can stay in "relationship", but cannot have sexual "union". They aren't seen as a valid union, but the church doesn't require that they end any and all relationship that exists, and we'd honestly probably still be fine calling them a "couple". Because all marriages are couples, but not all couples are marriages. And those that aren't can't legitimize sex.
Also keep in mind, this "living in abstinence together" would be the repentance requirement for confession and receiving the Eucharist. Wouldn't we expect a spontaneous blessing of the couple to have looser moral prerequisites than sacraments like confession and Eucharist? If this couple was considering converting and was meeting with a priest about it, would it be that crazy to expect the priest to bless them as a couple? Again, it's not like he's giving pre-converte the Eucharist.
Hi Guys, how do we continue after this? Is the issue about splitting a form ie a union, one bit of the form good another sinful? is this asking for a theologically Aristotelian solution?,
I think the bishops of Africa set a good example: clarify you're in communion with the Pope and that applying FS would cause scandal so they won't apply it. The document leaves it to the bishops, meaning they could all render it a dead letter.
@@liraco_mxThe Bishops are in the position that if they are caught giving this blessing, the person blessed can be executed. The church is responsible in its applications of its disciplines.
Wouldn't an incestuous relationship be covered by FS as an irregular relationship?
Yes. It allows for practically anything.
At this point, I don't see any reason not to include them. "The Church should not exclude those who are in the margins of margins. Consanguinity is a serious issue, it was the main cause of marriage invalidity in the past and still is a problem in many places. We must not condemn as we did in the past but accompany. Incestuous relationships have a lot of good elements in them. You have no idea how strong the natural familial bound can be in those relationships. An u**le who had relations with his n**ce will let her remember him everyday for the rest of her life. Giving them a blessing together as a couple may help perfect their relations grow into chastity."
I deeply apologize for the disgusting aspect of the satire, especially if it does not help a popesplainer understand why there's something wrong with FS.
In theory there wouldn't be anything against Church doctrine for a blessing to be given to such a couple. Of course the purpose of which would be to encourage the return to chastity and a true sibling relationship. Remember the blessing is not a legitimation of the union and is meant to help the individuals to fully do God's will. Obviously anything criminal would need to be reported and situations of abuse would not be given blessings as it would be pastorally inappropriate in practice.
Per the document, anything that is not a Sacramental marriage would be an irregular relationship
Apologies, a lot of comment. Perhaps its taken an autocratic to teach us something about the "dubia" concerning indeffectability of papal teaching?
While I’m glad you bring up the intrinsic connection between sexual immorality and idolatry, we can’t accuse Pope Francis of inconsistency. Remember Pachamama?
“Abram settled in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled among the cities of the Plain, pitching his tents near Sodom.” (Gn 13:12)
NOT a very “prudential judgment” on Lot’s part. 🤷♂️ As a culture we have become desensitized to homosexuality to a greater or lesser extent because it is literally celebrated in the public sphere. That is why the same people would cringe at the thought of the Church blessing incestuous couples but not same-sex couples. Incest isn’t publicly accepted…yet. That’s the problem with taking moral positions based on cultural acceptance. It changes. The truth, on the other hand, does NOT change. I don’t believe that the moral position of the Catholic Church on homosexual acts has been changed by Fiducia Supplicans, but definitely compromised to a certain extent.
How is it that the German Church has “a lot” of money?
There’s a church tax in Germany. All Germans who are registered as Catholics, Protestants or Jews pay a religious tax on their annual income tax bill. If you don’t pay, you must make an official declaration that you’re leaving the faith. The tax is 8-9% of one’s income. There’s more info on the My German Expert website.
So in other words, the church is guaranteed the money, unlike in the US (or elsewhere I suppose) where you can decide not to give, on principle or for whatever reason
FS allows for blessing of people in an incestous relationship: they are in "an irregular situation:. It can be argued, however, that it doesn't allow for blessings of people in a polygamous relationship becaue they are not "a couple".
What I would like to see is an investigation as to the process behind this "innovation", this "new understanding" of blessings. Has it just come out of thin air, the brain of Cdl Fernandez as it were, or can he point to a long period of "discernment" on the issue and to numerous theologians, over a long period of time, who have been developing this "new understanding"?
It's made-up. What investigations do you need? Fernandez and the pope think it's a brilliant solution, but they're thinking like politicians trying to maintain party affiliation instead of a religion that exists to state truth clearly, like Jesus did, without fear that some would walk away because it's too "hard" a teaching.
I was with you until the Co2 comment. Some (like the great environmentalist Patrick Moore) say Co2 is effectively greening the earth, and he and many others say there is no correlation (let alone causation) between Co2 and warming, so not sure how driving a high Co2 car would be sinful. Very strange to have that added on to a list of obviously morally wrong things.
I believe Erick makes a crucial mistake at 10:55 when he says the object of the blessing is not only the persons but also "clearly" the "good elements of the relationship". Where on earth is he getting this?? 😂 I've read the document many times and no where is it "clear" that there is somehow a secondary object of the blessing.
According the paragraph 31, the only object is PEOPLE "who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, etc". Just because the PEOPLE being blessed "beg" for help and healing in their lives and relationships doesn't somehow make OBJECT of the blessing their entire lives or relationships. Anything that happens in their relationships (such as healing, or fidelity to the Gospel) would be the EFFECT of the blessing not the object.
Also, didn't the Church already teach in 2021 that we can't bless the "good parts" of a same-sex relationship? Why are we pretending that's what's happening? The document doesn't say that.
Hi! Erick here. Thanks for watching and for being perceptive. So let me share with you why I think the "good elements" of the same-sex relationship, among other things, are the object of blessing. In the first place, the persons are always going to be the direct object. There is no way to bless someone's virtue of kindness without first coming through the person in whom said virtue inheres. So there is no way to directly bless "positive elements" of a relationship without blessing the persons in that relationship as a matter of logical priority.
Let's look at paragraph 31, and I'll put into bold where a pause/reflection should be paid:
"[...] 𝑎 𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑎𝑦 𝑏𝑒 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐺𝑜𝑑 𝒖𝒑𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒔𝒆 [persons] 𝑤ℎ𝑜-𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑖𝑠 ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑝-𝑑𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑚 𝑎 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒐𝒘𝒏 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒔, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑏𝑒𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒆, 𝒈𝒐𝒐𝒅, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒉𝒖𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒑𝒔 𝒃𝒆 𝒆𝒏𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒅, 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒆𝒅, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒗𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒃𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑯𝒐𝒍𝒚 𝑺𝒑𝒊𝒓𝒊𝒕 [...] 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒎𝒂𝒚 𝒃𝒆 𝒇𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒅 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒇𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒔, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒎𝒂𝒚 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓-𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒅𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝒍𝒐𝒗𝒆." (31)
So from the start, we can all agree that the blessing descends from God upon the persons of the couple. However, if we are to ask Fernandez, "to what do these blessings aim to do?". Fernandez answers: "to enrich all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships." Very well. It is obvious that "their relationships" involves the most pertinent one which is between the 2 gays persons themselves.
We have confirmation of this in the interview Fernandez gave to the Pillar. There, he says:
"𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒, 𝑏𝑦 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒘𝒐 𝒑𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑙𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑖𝑡, 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑠𝑘 𝐺𝑜𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒉, 𝒑𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒆, 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚-𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑤𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑎𝑠𝑘 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑎𝑠𝑘 𝑓𝑜𝑟. 𝑨𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆, 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒌 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒚 𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒔𝒆 𝒕𝒘𝒐 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒐𝒏𝒔, 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒊𝒔 𝒔𝒊𝒏, 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒂𝒚 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎 [𝒕𝒐 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒆𝒊𝒗𝒆] 𝒂 𝒔𝒑𝒊𝒓𝒊𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒅𝒊𝒂𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒖𝒆, 𝒑𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆, 𝒎𝒖𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝒉𝒆𝒍𝒑 [...] 𝐴𝑠 𝐼 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑎𝑦𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑡, 𝑜𝑛 𝑎 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒, 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑝𝑙𝑒, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝒘𝒉𝒐 𝒔𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒈𝒐𝒐𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒔, 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 ℎ𝑎𝑑 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛𝑜𝑤 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑎 𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒃𝒆𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒎𝒖𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝒉𝒆𝒍𝒑 [...] 𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑎𝑠𝑘𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝒇𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒑 𝒃𝒆 𝒑𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒅, 𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒇𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑮𝒐𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒍."
So you see here that the blessing is for the persons, just like any blessing would be that descends to a sinner for help, but the aim of the blessing is to enrich elements IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP which are goodies rather than badies. This might not even be repentance. It could be a "spirit of dialogue" , "patience", and "mutual help" between the two persons.
So I think you need to take all of this into account. The blessing does come to persons. There is no other way to bless "elements" of a relationship without first going to the persons.
Also, using the concept of "effect" doesn't change anything. The effect of the blessing is also simply the person's reception of the blessing.
Dear @@Erick_Ybarra, thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply! You still have yet to prove that the positive elements of the relationship are the OBJECT of the blessing. You have only argued that AIM of the blessing is to rich elements in their relationships and lives, etc.
We need to make a distinction between blessing a positive element of a sinful relationship and HOPING/PRAYING/AIMING that good things happen in their life as RESULT of the blessing (such as healing, fidelity to the gospel, etc).
I would also argue that even the positive "elements" of a relationship are not the object of the blessing. Someone else may have a better way of articulating this, but is it even possible to bless someone's "fidelity"? Can a priest bless someone's "desire for holiness"? How is it even possible to bless an "element"? To me, that is why we actually bless the persons, with the aim/desire that their relationship is enriched, healed, etc.
Happy to discuss further so that we can both come to a further understanding of the truth.
@@jmj.thomas
Thanks.
So I do think the persons are the direct object. There is no way to directly get to an inhering virtue without the person. The accident of good inheres a person, and so there really is no way to speak about blessing "good elements" directly. However, there is a way to speak about having a purpose for said blessing to persons, and Fernandez (and FS) make it very clear that the purpose of said blessing to persons is to enrich everything that is good in their relationships, obviously including the same-sex relationship. Fernandez confirms this in his Pillar interview when he hits the goodness that exists in mutuality*. Also, when I speak of the "good elements" as object, I just mean that this is the aim of the blessing. In a sense, this is perfectly fine because this would be precisely what exists if 2 gays decide to repent and walk away from each other. However, the problem with FS and with Fernandez (and obviously Pope Francis) is that they are envisioning an enrichment of virtues between 2 gays *while they endure in the evil of a same sex relationship. That is obvious from the text of FS and all clarificatory documents.
@@Erick_Ybarra Thank you for at least making a destination between "direct object" of the blessing and "object", and for admitting that the persons are the direct object. However, when you speak of "good elements" as the object, you are completely misleading people! Just say the "aim" of the blessing! That way, there's no issue! We agree that it's perfectly fine to have the "aim" of enriching their lives, relationship, fidelity to the Gospel, etc.
I am asking this as genuinely as possible and am not trying to gaslight, but where are you getting the idea that Pope Francis, Cardinal Ferndanzes, and the document itself is "envisioning an richment of virtues between 2 gays *WHILE THEY ENDURE IN EVIL*? Everything I've read points to the contrary! Obviously, the entire point of the blessing is that they would turn away from evil, conform their life to God's Will! The document says this.
The Marion Prophecies are being fulfilled now.
Francis' approach, which is a typical Jesuit approach, goes back to the early 17th century. Pascal wrote about this Jesuit method of pastoral ministry, especially as it relates to the moral law of God, in his "Provincial Letters"
Remember that it was the Jansenists who were condemned. Not the Jesuits
I listened to the first 36 minutes and didn’t hear anything on the blessing being spontaneous in your examples. It’s late and Ill have to listen more later. But the examples you gave are not consistent with what the document was saying about the requirement that these be spontaneous. Archbishop Fernandez even noted in his further explanation that these blessings should only be a few seconds long and your examples were well beyond these requirements.
I think you are not giving adequate thinking to what spontaneous might be. It will always involve a plan. Even if it is a gay couple at a Mass where they know the Church performs these blessings. If a priest announces he will do this on request, it will always involve a plan, even if within 1 hour or 5 hours.
- CCC 2357 teaches that the sin is the sex act. Homosexuality itself is not a sin. The “grave depravity” are the “homosexual acts”.
- 2458: Homosexuals must be treated with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity”
- 2359: Homosexual PERSONS are called to chastity.”
The assumption from critics is that all homosexual couples are in a state of sin. What about the couples “persons” that are practicing chastity? How are the ones practicing chastity, celibacy, being treated with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” if we are lumping them all together as sinners? The sin is the sex act, not their sexual preference.
Paragraph 31 mentions that the “relationship matures”. This is chastity and celibacy as taught by St Paul.
Where in the document does it say these couples can have sex and get the blessing? How does such a person fit with the person described in paragraphs 8-10, 20 and 31? The person the document describes is not seeking to sin. If one cannot find where the document says sin can be blessed, how is this argument not a strawman? According to the Catechism, we cannot assume they are sinning. That is the sin of rash judgment in 2477. How can one assume the couple is in a state of sin if they might be practicing chastity per our Catechism?
So what happens if they aren’t practicing celibacy?
A popesplainer is a person that seeks to follow the Catholic Sacred Tradition that we form our conscious from the church and the Magisterium, which is the Pope and the Bishops who submit to him. We do not form our conscious based on our own understanding. That is an error some Protestant teach.
Popesplaining is a particular position within catholic opinions that stipulates the Church is always acting good because of the goodness of its divine institution. The Church is always good, and therefore it is always right to follow her decisions because she is fighting the evils of this world without being itself subjected to evils in some sense. It is very manichean, it does not understand that there exist intermediary positions. It is not pragmatic because it denies the legitimacy of conscience. How many times since Vatican II have we not heard that we should not disobey our conscience! Furthermore, it tacitly poses that obedience extend to the internal forum - which is wrong, there has never been any obedience to the internal forum, even for those who took a religious vow.
Take Peter Canisius. In Germany, he convinced the roman legates not to apply the orders they had received from the Apostolic See because these orders were simply dumb. I think it is Ignace of Loyola who hid in his pocket the papal bull commanding the immediate excommunication of any protestant who'd refuse to return to the Catholic faith after a first preaching, while himself was preaching them for the second, third times. Rome's discipline was dumb, because after more preaching, those scandalized Germans eventually realized the misconstruction of protestant arguments and returned massively to the faith, while strictly applying Rome's discipline would have obviously made them more obstinate and kept them away from the catholic faith.
What can be the explanation of their attitude, if not that they had sensed, BY THEIR PRIVATE JUDGMENT, that the commandment of charity towards our neighbor can be superior to that of the pope, and that it would be evil for them to not follow their conscience. This is the parable Jesus taught us about the Good Samaritan - the reason the Levites did not help the man, is because if they touch blood, they would be impure for the entire day, and thus wouldn't be able to fulfill the sacrifices and rituals mandated by the Law, which came from God. Pope Francis actually said something interesting once in regard to popesplaining in general. He said, sometimes it is impossible to keep a commandment of the Church without committing a sin. It provoked many scandal among thomistic theologians, but it should really be meditated why.
As to Pope Francis not wanting to change church teaching. No, he does not want to change it. He wants to ignore it. He wants to pretend it does not exist, and then allow every priest to act as if it does not exist, therefore every priest can do whatever he wants. This is enough to cause the destruction of the Catholic church, and its degeneration into another Episcopalian church. If you imagine that Pope Francis wants to destroy the Catholic church, all of his actions suddenly make sense.
Lasted 21 minutes and decided this is bull.
Lord, protect me from your most superstitious followers. They are so weird.
I actually are we should go back to chaste vs non-chaste, instead of LGBT. Because the whole reason that there's even social presence and discourse about homosexuality etc. is because there's already been loosening of sexual morals overall!! With the prevalence of non-marital sex which is by the majority of population now considered normal... I know many Catholic who are very much against gay issues, but when the topics comes to divorce, new relationship/'marriage' afterwards, they suddenly become much more lenient.🤷♀️
I think we should go back to conceptualizing the non-marital sexual relations for what they are: fornication. Go to the basics.
In my view whatever the Pope says goes
I always wonder why some Catholic reactionaries put their eggs in this basket. Is it their sin in specific? I guess as a married straight man I just don't get it. It's just not an issue that weighs on my mind. God transforms us over time and I have sins I have to work out yet. Does the principle of subsidiarity come into play on this issue? Or what Ivan Illich called a philosophy on soil?
Did you listen to the video?
Everything is tied together. I can put it another way to avoid PC topics. There is a crisis of love. Too many married heterosexual couples don’t even know what sex is and they approach each other as a hole to masturbate with or an object to assist achieving orgasm. You can absolutely follow the dictionary definition of sex and reproduce while doing nothing more than masturbate or attempting to perceive it as such. This of course is the logical result of a materialist view of the world.
As to the issue at hand, it sends a signal among others that the church is a follower of the world at a precise point in time where the world is diametrically opposed to the church.
@@Joeonline26 yes. While I was running. Did I miss something?
Root cause to me is one of the scandals of the "Church". (No, I am not Roman - nor having excessive loyalty to any other tradition - except to the mystery of Christ) I am not speaking of that old temptation of gnosticism. It is the scandal of not loving our neighbor - or ourselves. Our inability to, in act-uality, love the sinner and hate the sin. Thus the "Church" (pick your tradition), finds itself trapped in the false dicotomy of either driving the sinner away, or embracing (rationalyzing/ relativizing) the sin that destroys our neighbor and ourselves. Love is speaking the Truth of the dangers while having a deep empathy for our profound weaknesses. Lord, have mercy.
Unsubscribed.
A gay couple comes to a priest and says, "Father, we understand the Churches teaching on same sex unions, but our relationship is different. The love we share is real & we want to dedicate our lives to each other. Can you give us a blessing to sacramentalize our relationship?" According to FS the priest is obliged to say, "No, God does not bless sin."
A gay couple comes to a priest & says, "Father, we understand the Churches teaching on same sex unions. But we don't know what to do. Can you give us a blessing that God may help us break this oppression to sin?" According to FS the priest may choose to help them turn their lives around.
Tell that to James Martin.
And seriously, let's be honest. No gay couple is going to seek a blessing to help them end their relationship. They're going to have their relationship validated.
Very simple, "I will pray for you to come separately. By your insistence that you need a blessing upon the two of you is a sign you aren't even interested in the right way"
@@3ggshe11s true, but FS says the Church can't/won't validate their relationship. The only thing the Church can & will do is help people live holier lives.
@@Erick_Ybarra that's an option. Nobody said anything about insisting.
@@knowbody6441 if they are docile, welcome them to the office for counseling. Definitely pray for them. But you are not really being fair to the capacity of FS. The dialogue you gave sounds like a humble gay couple who want to separate. Well, if that is the case, they would also respect that their being together is a massive scandal. They would respect going to a private office for counseling and a promise of the priest's prayers. But not demand for an open blessing upon both together.
the good ol' 'it lacks clarity" stance.. take that same stance in everything in the bible then. if the bible was clear then we wouldnt have so many heresies... Critique the word of God the same way then. what a constant bad take. everythings clear and if its not then maybe theres some sin deranging the mind
Might as well appeal to the Bible for every other unclear matter, too. Leaving us with no direction at all!
People are fundamentally damaged at times. This is a great document. I didn’t like how Dr. Chap played down trauma. Totally need to educate yourself.
I’m not sure indulging damaged people in their disordered habits sets them on the path to healing. FS has already led to this, with no correction from Rome as far as I have seen. Hard not to see that as a feature rather than a bug of this document. Can you specify how you think FS will help?
"We should lower standards due to damage". Please. You're pathetic.
Never trust a blocker.