By Fr. James Barry
Part One of this article explored the question “Why issue such a document [Fiducia Supplicans] if nothing has really changed and it’s not saying anything new?”
Fiducia Supplicans (FS) says priests can bless pilgrims on their journey without asking about their marital status. But priests already know we can do that. Instead of clarifying anything, FS only creates new problems for priests.
So the second question that needs to be addressed in regard to FS is: Why issue a confusing document of this sort?
The Second Question
If the Pontiff had issued Amoris laetitia and claimed later that he didn’t know that it would cause chaos, I might have believed it. However, to issue a second document that also causes confusion with more ambiguity seems to be more like a modus operandi than cause for a mea culpa.
It is widely known that Cardinal “Tucho” (the nickname of Víctor Manuel Cardinal Fernández, now head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith, DDF) was the ghost writer for Amoris. If mixed reactions and confusion were not what you wanted, why would you make him the head of the DDF?
I think ambiguity is what Francis wants. It seems to be part of his vision of the Church and how it advances through time.
It’s very easy to dismiss Pope Francis as a Marxist or as an incoherent and inconsistent thinker. But I think both positions are erroneous and even dangerously naïve.
There has been a great deal of talk about “what Francis means” and what it means to think “as Francis does.” However, precious little has been said about what intellectual presuppositions underlie Francis’ thought. And in these intellectual presuppositions may lie the true hermeneutic of Francis’ thought.
The Mind of Pope Francis
A precious guide to how Francis thinks is Massimo Borghesi’s “The Mind of Pope Francis: Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Intellectual Journey”.[1] The book is dense and heavily philosophical, and it does not make for light reading.
Borghesi, a professor of philosophy, has an extensive knowledge of Romano Guardini (the subject of Francis’ unfinished doctoral dissertation) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He wrote this intellectual biography by reconstructing Bergoglio’s formative itinerary, in part, from four audio recordings that the Pope himself provided as a sort of interview.
I cannot do justice to Borghesi’s work in a few lines. I simply wish to indicate here three points that serve to place Francis’ thought in context and give a direction to those who wish to study it in more detail.
Point #1
First, Borghesi labels Francis’ thought as dialectical, which is how Francis himself considers it. In an audio recording Francis notes that “Reading Methol Ferré and [Amelia] Podetti, I’ve taken something of the dialectic, in an anti-Hegelian form because she was a specialist in Hegel but wasn’t Hegelian.”[2]
For those who are unfamiliar with the Hegelian dialectic, it consists essentially of three moments: a thesis, the antithesis (the thesis’ opposition), and then overcoming the two in a synthesis. In the synthesis, the difference in the two opposing thoughts are overcome in a higher level, yet the difference is also maintained.
In 2007, then-Cardinal Bergoglio wrote that “It would be a very difficult task to do philosophy in the modern world without Hegel.”[3] The constant push-and-pull of life, this dialectic, is the movement that Francis sees in the world now. Indeed, Borghesi emphasizes how many of the thinkers who influenced Bergoglio affirmed that Catholicism is a coincidentia oppositorum, a gathering or coincidence of opposites.[4]
Dialectical
For Francis, all these different elements, opinions, and thoughts are gathered under the one roof we call “the Church.” And such a dialectic of different opinions and options should be encouraged.
For this reason, in 1980 Bergoglio wrote in an instruction to the Jesuits that “‘disjunctive propositions’ [propositions with an ‘or’ – as in, “either this or that”] should be avoided, because these of themselves always negate one option because they do not lead to any other solution. Rather, we must turn to ‘alternatives’ that are creative and are expressed in a language of antimonies and tensions that we could define as ‘dialectical’.”[5]
Point #2
Second, there is the teología del pueblo, the theology of the people. This popular spirituality of the people naturally led to liberation theology, which sought to encourage them to work towards a more just world, although often by means of violence.
Francis shunned liberation theology, but the theology of the people has always been close to his heart.
Infallible Belief
In a 1974 address to the provincial gathering of Jesuits, then-Fr. Bergoglio noted:
“What appears all the more significant is the acknowledgement of the reserve of religiosity that the faithful people possess. . . . I would like to express, as my own reflection, what this reality of the faithful people means to me. By faithful people I mean simply the people who are faithful, that is, those with whom we have the most contact in our priestly mission and in our religious witness. It is clear that now, among us, “people” has become an ambiguous term on account of the ideological presuppositions with which this reality is affirmed and perceived. Now, however, I repeat, I want to make reference simply to the faithful people. When I studied theology, when, like you, I went through the Denzinger [the book that contains the dogmatic teachings of the popes and councils] and the treatises to prepare my thesis, I was very strongly struck by a phrase from the Christian tradition: the faithful people is infallible in credendo, in believing. From there I have taken my own personal formula, which will not be very precise but which helps me a great deal: when you want to know what the Church teaches, go to the Magisterium, because she has the task of teaching it in an infallible way. However, when you want to know how the Church believes, you need to turn to the faithful people.”[6]
So according to Pope Francis, the people of God are infallible in belief. This is a key point to which I will return. The Church might teach what dogmas and doctrines to believe, but how they are to be lived out comes from the people.
Point #3
Thirdly, there is the influence of Alberto Methol Ferré. Ferré’s works and friendship to the future pontiff were such that Borghesi calls him “Bergoglio’s philosopher”[7] (perhaps as Tucho could be called “Francis’ theologian”). Borghesi notes that Methol had a vision of the Church that was dialectic, a position that “overcomes and transcends the oppositions of the world.”[8]
Borghesi then cites a lengthy text from Methol, and takes pains to state that even with the similarities between this writing and Bergoglio’s thoughts, we shouldn’t claim that Methol was the source for all of Francis’ dialectical thinking, but the similarity is noteworthy. In 1975 Methol wrote:
“It would be superhuman to completely understand the coincidentia oppositorum which is the Church. . . . The Church essentially has two poles, born from the Spirit of God and of Jesus Christ in the Apostles. It is visible and invisible, in a single indissoluble breath. Ecclesiologies tend to emphasize one of the opposite elements: now they tend to “spiritualization,” then to “incarnation.” The emphasis placed on one pole leads to deviation and heresy when it becomes a contradictory opposition if the rectifying, correcting movement isn’t made. Neither of the two poles can be loosened, just as it is humanly impossible to not give a certain supremacy to one over the other. The equilibrium is always unstable, moveable, renewed. If it breaks, the Church cannot “breathe” and then it is dissolved in mystical abstractions or it is bogged down in institutional forms. Spirit without institutions, or institutions without Spirit, are false oppositions that destroy the Church.”[9]
Necessary Oppositions
Borghesi emphasizes that this passage doesn’t necessarily cause Francis’ thoughts, but, once having read it, it is impossible not to think that Francis sees this as the way that dialectic lives in the Church.
To summarize, then, Pope Francis’ thought is essentially dialectical, meaning, there have been, and always will be, oppositions in the Church. Indeed, these oppositions are a necessary part of her life, since emphasizing one side or the other too much leads to rigidity or the erosion of doctrine.
This is so true that dialectic or conflict is to be preferred to emphasizing one side or another too much. Likewise, while the hierarchical Church might be responsible for telling us what to believe, how that belief is lived out, meaning, what that means practically, is left for the people of God, the faithful.
Taking these principles and examining the Francis pontificate in light of them, things suddenly become clearer.
Necessary Tension
Take line (25) in FS for instance: “The Church, moreover, must shy away from resting its pastoral praxis on the fixed nature of certain doctrinal or disciplinary schemes, especially when they lead to “a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying”.”
Why would this be the case? First, because the tension in such a field is necessary. Not everything can be resolved in favor of dogma. Second, because pastoral praxis depends on the people of God. The faithful show us how to live the Church’s doctrines. Pastoral praxis cannot rest on doctrine or dogma; it comes from the people.
Indeed, this is the argument that is made in FS: if the people ask for a blessing, they can have it. After all, they are the people of God. This is precisely why no formal or structured blessings will be offered by the DDF. “Beyond the guidance provided above, no further responses should be expected about possible ways to regulate details or practicalities regarding blessings of this type” (41).
Praxis!!!
Why the emphasis on synodality? Again, the Church might establish dogmas, but how to live them comes from the people of God. Perhaps the Church can maintain that pre-marital sex, divorce and remarriage, and same-sex unions are sinful from a dogmatic standpoint, but the people of God should have a say in how those are lived out. Dogma comes from above, but praxis (i.e., how the faith is practiced) comes from below.
Take, also, the rhetoric directed against conservative and more traditional Catholics, as well as against ideologies (although much more against the first). The Church needs both poles. To divinize everything is wrong, as is humanizing everything. Woe to the priests who try to impose ancient liturgical practices on the people! Praxis to the people!
The True Dialectic
So, why issue such a confusing document? First, because it is the counterbalance to the dogmatic reply to the dubia, which counteracts the rigidity that could come from that reply. And second, because, while doctrine comes from above, praxis comes from below. It is up to the people to see how they live out that truth in their own time and place.
So then the question must be asked: Is such a document helpful? I would argue ‘no.’
Contrary to what Francis seems to think, the true dialectic isn’t within the Church, but between the Church and the world. That is where the opposition is.
Documents such as FS are not helpful because they make the Church a two-fold traitor. She betrays the faithful because they have a right to expect clarity and guidance from her. And she also betrays the world, because she is supposed to lead it to salvation, not to acceptance, and certainly not for the sake of maintaining some pseudo-dialectic.
(Fr. James Barry is a pseudonym for a Roman Catholic parish priest.)
[1] In Italian, Jorge Mario Bergoglio: Una biografia intellettuale (Milan: Jaca Books, 2017). My understanding is that the Italian is the original, and hence I will cite from it. All translations into English are my own.
[2] Borghesi, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 57.
[3] Borghesi, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 55. Taken from Bergoglio’s preface to the second edition of Podetti’s commentary on the introduction to Hegel’s Phenomenology of the Spirit.
[4] Borghesi, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 108: Borghesi notes that this is the thought of Przywara, Guardini, Fessard, and others.
[5] Borghesi, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 87: the text is taken from Bergoglio’s Criteria for Apostolic Action.
[6] Borghesi, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 75.
[7] Borghesi, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 106.
[8] Borghesi, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 107.
[9] Cited in Borghesi, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 107.
19 thoughts on “Fiducia Supplicans is Meant to Cause Tension: Part 2”
In reply to Gene Van Son:
Fair enough. Let’s remove my claim that the original post “attacks” the Pope, although I must maintain that the article is certainly not complimentary of him. I am glad to learn that CS and you yourself have written in defense of Pope Francis.
Since we are being careful with word choices, let’s also suggest that “Fr. Barry” change his wording from “It is widely known that Cardinal ‘Tucho’ … was the ghost writer for Amoris,” to “It is widely believed that Cardinal ‘Tucho’ …” “Known” leads readers to think that there is indisputable proof, which there is not, as you have said.
Let us also suggest that, rather than philosophers’ quotes from 1974 and 1975, “Fr. Barry” include Pope Francis’ actual words from October, 2023: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when ‘from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful,’ they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals” (www.usccb.org/news/2023/opinion-vs-inspiration-synod-grapples-concept-sensus-fidei#:~:text=Matthew’s%20Gospel%20is%20to%20the,Vatican%20Council%20taught%2C%20he%20said).
The Pontiff’s words from 2023 indicate a belief in infallibility of the faithful people of God when the faithful people are in agreement with the Bishops. That’s a far cry from saying, “Praxis to the people!!!” Pope Francis’ words do not claim that people are infallible when they go against teachings of the Magisterium.
Speaking of the Magisterium, I am in agreement with you that Catholic catechesis has been watered down since the mid 20th century. We are in need of faithful teachers of Catholic doctrine. Let us hope that in our zeal to build up the People of God (the Church), we do not fall into the trap of using exaggeration or extremism to prove our points.
I couldn’t agree more that words are important. But sometimes knowing comes down to having faith in (believing) the source, sans proof (Christianity for instance). In the article I let the words “it is widely known” stand because I believe the source has insider knowledge. Readers are free to accept or reject the validity of this.
However, I’m not sure what you are trying to say with your statement “Pope Francis’ words do not claim that people are infallible when they go against teachings of the Magisterium.” He said (his own words) “. . . when you want to know how the Church believes, you need to turn to the faithful people.” As with many of PF’s statements, this statement is ambiguous and open to interpretation.
If there were no weasel words, studied ambiguity, and outright lavender mafia agenda-driving in FS, then the backtracking and further obfuscation would not have happened:
The Vatican desperately tries to clean up a mess of its own making
The Washington Examiner
Opinion by Jeremiah Poff
““The Vatican has entered full damage control mode less than a month after creating mass confusion in December through its document allowing Catholic priests to bless people in same-sex relationships.
On Thursday, the Vatican released a five-page press release attempting to clarify aspects of Fiducia Supplicans, the landmark document that was released last month allowing priests to bless those in gay partnerships outside of any context that could be considered similar to a wedding. The statement comes after a number of bishops conferences, especially from Africa, rebuked the Vatican by refusing to implement the document.
“While Fernandez and the Vatican can hand-wring and claim that the media and Christie misinterpreted the document and that its text affirms marriage as an indissoluble bond between one man and one woman, the fact remains that the vague language of the document invited such interpretations. And it was that public interpretation of the document that likely fueled the backlash by the bishops conferences.
“The faithful of the Catholic Church look to their leaders to provide unambiguous and clear teachings on moral issues, and priests and bishops, including Fernandez and Pope Francis, have a duty to provide it. This was an entirely avoidable mess that could easily be rectified by withdrawing the initial document”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-vatican-desperately-tries-to-clean-up-a-mess-of-its-own-making/ar-AA1mwgCc?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=e65fc093c8cc4708b30fa9a06fc8c7c6&ei=12
From God’s word given to us in Mark 14:
60 The high priest rose before the assembly and questioned Jesus, saying, “Have you no answer? What are these men testifying against you?” 61 But he was silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him and said to him, “Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?” 62 Then Jesus answered, “I am;
and ‘you will see the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of the Power
and coming with the clouds of heaven.’”
63 At that the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further need have we of witnesses?
A second point of “Fr. Barry” which needs some clarification: Pope Francis does not say that the people have the right in the Catholic Church to determine how doctrine is lived out. According to “Fr. Barry’s” own report, the Holy Father said: “when you want to know what the Church teaches, go to the Magisterium, because she has the task of teaching it in an infallible way. However, when you want to know how the Church believes, you need to turn to the faithful people.” He does not say “how the Church lives out its beliefs,” but rather, “how the Church believes.” They are 2 very different things. How I believe means how I interpret, comprehend, and make sense of what was taught to me. It is not how I live it out. Pope Francis’ words do not mean “praxis to the people.” And if the people’s interpretation of doctrine is faulty, then the Magisterium needs to check up on its teaching arm. What are pastors and religious educators doing wrong? What are they missing? No where in Francis’ writing that “Fr. Barry” reports is there evidence that Pope Francis condones the People of God deciding for themselves what to obey and what to disregard of Church teaching.
Ms. Meo, in this article “Fr. Barry” makes it very clear that he is drawing on and recapping what Massimo Borghesi wrote in “The Mind of Pope Francis: Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Intellectual Journey.” Perhaps Borghesi provides the “evidence” you are seeking in his book. (An English translation is available at Amazon for $29.95.) Note, however, that practice does follow belief. If one believes abortion, homosexual relations, pre-marital sexual relations, artificial contraception, or adultery are morally acceptable, one will not have a problem putting those beliefs into practice or accepting them as normal behaviors. But that still does not make them morally acceptable.
Your statement “if the people’s interpretation of doctrine is faulty, then the Magisterium needs to check up on its teaching arm,” gets to the crux of the matter. The Magisterium’s teaching arm (in addition to the CCC and papal encyclicals) are all the bishops throughout the world, and the Catechists and religious education programs that are in place in the dioceses. And for the last 60 years religious education (overall) has been poor to say the least.
Pingback: Fiducia Supplicans is Meant to Cause Tension: Part 1 - Catholic Stand
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2024-01/dicastery-for-the-doctrine-of-the-faith-on-fiducia-supplicans.html
To all Readers: The link which Suellen provides is an excellent response to the questioning many have had about Fiducia Supplicans. If you don’t have time to read the whole document, skip to #5. Thanks for the link, Suellen!
“We ask the newly-born Lord to shower a generous and gracious blessing upon everyone so that we can live a holy and happy 2024.”
Why would the Prefect write such a closing to this document? Jesus is not newly-born. According to scripture, He had an earthly birth in Bethlehem over 2,000 years ago, died, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God, and is coming back.
Makes me wonder about the validity of the entire document presented in the article.
In reply to Robert’s comment about Jesus being called “newly born”: I understood it to be in the same sense that we pray to the Christ Child or the infant of Prague.
There is much to discuss in this article and its predecessor from yesterday. That being said, one perhaps minor point ought to be noted, to avoid misconceptions among readers: This article claims that “It is widely known that Cardinal ‘Tucho’ (the nickname of Víctor Manuel Cardinal Fernández, now head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith, DDF) was the ghost writer for Amoris.” I do not find conclusive evidence of a ghost writer. I found accusations and arguments but not evidence that Pope Francis did not write the work. Crux, an online publication, identifies isolated sentences from Amoris Laetitia that are similar to sentences in Cardinal Fernandez’ work, but notes that the statements are not of theological importance. Wikipedia reports that Cardinal Fernandez took part in the redaction of the document. Redactors are editors, not ghost writers. Suggestions made by editors are considered and evaluated by the author, and often times accepted into the work.
In scholarly writing, we use many sources. In footnotes, Amoris Laetitia recognizes many sources. Isn’t it more correct to say that Cardinal Fernandez is an editor and a source, rather than to identify him as a ghost writer?
Ms. Meo, numerous Catholic journalists and essayists are of the opinion that Cardinal Fernández ghost wrote Amoris Laetitia. It may or may not be true, and we will probably never know for sure one way or the other. Regardless, as you note, this is a very minor point in the article.
Interesting article about Fernandez.
https://www.christianpost.com/news/cardinal-fernndez-addresses-resurfaced-book-about-orgasms-jesus.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
In response to Robert’s Jan 12 comment:
I was going to let this go without a reply. It is a distasteful conversation to me, because the original post attacks the Holy Father. I cannot believe I had to defend him in a Catholic publication. But now it seems I’m being called to defend decency.
First, I stand by my other comments, as they are logical responses to the original post.
Second, I object to the recent comment which advertises a mud-slinging article full of impure references that ultra conservative Christian press has become enamored with in the last few days. The unfortunate book referenced (a 1990s book intended for young married couples, written by Cardinal Fernandez) should never have been written. Its author apparently regrets having written it, had pulled it out of publication years ago, and does not authorize its being reprinted. To dig it up and write lengthy articles about it exposes people to its errors now, and cannot result in anything positive. It will not bring about the rescinding of Fiducia Supplicans, but it will spread evil, sacrilegious statements. I am appalled and embarrassed that the article is posted as a response to my comment.
The fact is that FS was approved by Pope Francis. Regardless of who wrote it, the Pope authorized its publication. We can debate its nuances and consequences, of course. But to drag ourselves through filth as a protest to it is neither moral nor effectual.
Mary, please read the article (both parts) again, perhaps a bit more slowly. CS does not publish attack articles and this article is no exception. It is NOT attacking the Holy Father. Charitably and legitimately questioning PF’s judgement in regard to a single document is not an attack on him.
CS has published a number of articles defending PF. I have even written a couple of them myself. This article is simply 1) questioning the whys behind the publication of FS; 2) offering a possible explanation of PF’s thought process, and 3) offering an opinion that FS is causing unneeded confusion and creating problems for many parish priests. None of this constitutes an attack on PF.
Paul wrote to the Thessalonians that our gathering to the Lord is preceded by two events – “For unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition” – from 2 Thessalonians 2.
Are we in the midst of the apostasy?
I dislike complex arguments, big words and doctoral thesis that are usually shelved and rarely read. I believe that the Pope was covering his back in his document on blessings showing the compassionate face of Christ on the cross in forgiving and being there for every sinner. The praxis of our faith however needs to be taught from the rigidity of doctrine but that all our sins against doctrine or practice are forgiven providing we are contrite and follow Christs teaching that fulfils the commandments and is written on every man’s heart. However cons ience has been dulled because we aren’t taught the truths of faith which is meant for our happiness not destruction, a foretaste of heaven not hell. However our world seems bent on lack of trust in each other, commitment, destruction, killing, greed, and power. We control not God which is hell. Mistrust and power become the means of control instead of love, blessings and help. A church which is not inclusive is not of God but we need to attire ourselves in the wedding garments the church provides not our own attire or we may find ourselves thrust out into the weeping and gnashing of our own rules and behaviour instead of Jesus’s.
Didn’t God destroy the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah for their sinful behavior? Didn’t Jesus call out the Jewish religious leaders for their sinful behavior? Didn’t Jesus reprimand Peter for his behavior and call him “Satan”?
Didn’t Jesus say “Go and sin no more”? Doesn’t scripture tell us that certain behavior will exclude people from entering the kingdom of God?
Isn’t the pope telling priests to give a blessing to those who are engaged in behavior that is contrary to God’s word?