The post-truth Robert Habeck method seems to be popular in Santa Marta
A few years ago the term “post-truth” came up. Is it really enough to say that something is not what it obviously is? Cardinal Tucho Fernández, Pope Francis' favorite protégé, seems to be of this opinion.
A statement by the German Economics Minister Robert Habeck from the Green Party became a popular example of post-truth thinking: When asked whether he expected a wave of bankruptcies this winter, he replied: “No, I don't. I can imagine that certain industries will simply stop producing and selling." Some church leaders seem to have a similar opinion, for example with regard to Fiducia supplicans, the new declaration of the Dicastery of Faith on the blessing of couples in irregular situations (remarried divorcees, homosexuals). When asked whether the Church now blesses homosexual sin, Santa Marta answers: No, it just looks like that, but it is not the case, because nowhere does it say that sin is blessed.
So is a simple denial really enough to deny the obvious and everything is clarified, cleaned up and good? If the prefect of the faith, Victor Manuel “Tucho” Cardinal Fernández, who has been in office since September, has his way, that is the case. He made three media appearances within a short period of time to defend Fiducia supplicans using the Habeck method. Such an approach apparently leads some believers to come to the conclusion that the much older Götz von Berlichingen method is actually being used towards them, which - at least everyone will agree on this - would be less than respectful.
One medium that gave Tucho Fernández an opportunity for his capers is the leading Spanish bourgeois daily newspaper ABC. The interview conducted by Javier Martínez-Brocal was published yesterday, St. Stephen's Day.
ABC: How can you respond to the reactions expressed against the document by various episcopal conferences, cardinals and bishops?
Cardinal Fernández: If you read the text calmly, you will see that it clearly and simply represents what has always been the Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality. It is clear that these conferences or bishops cannot contradict this teaching.
ABC: What happens now? So why do they reject this blessing?
Cardinal Fernández: You point out the impropriety involved in carrying out blessings in your regional environment, which could easily be misunderstood as legitimizing an irregular association. Add to that the fact that there are laws in Africa that punish the mere fact of being homosexual with prison - so imagine a blessing. In reality, it is up to each local bishop to make this decision in his diocese or, in any case, to provide further guidance.
ABC: What element is not taken into account by those who oppose blessing gay couples?
Cardinal Fernández: I don't think it is clear that the central theme of the document is the value of "non-liturgical", "non-ritualized" blessings, which do not constitute a marriage, not even a "consent" or a marriage represent ratification of anything. They are simply a pastor's response to two people's request for God's help. And in this case the priest does not impose any conditions.
ABC: Can you give an example of where this blessing is given?
Cardinal Fernández: Imagine that, in the middle of a great pilgrimage, a divorced couple entering into a new relationship says to the priest: “Please bless us. We can't find work and he is very sick, life is becoming very difficult for us, God help us”. Would you refuse such a blessing?
ABC: I don't see a problem with that.
Cardinal Fernández: And if you were gay, would you reject it? You see, a blessing is neither an acknowledgment of the marriage, nor an affirmation of the life they lead, nor an absolution. It is a simple gesture of pastoral closeness that does not have the same requirements as a sacrament. We will have to get used to understanding that a priest who gives this kind of simple blessing is not a heretic, is not ratifying anything, nor is he denying Catholic teaching on marriage.
ABC: Some have celebrated this as a first step toward doctrinally legitimizing divorce or same-sex marriage. Is this view correct?
Cardinal Fernández: This view is completely wrong, and anyone who says so has either not read the text or has “mala leche” (with bad intention), if you will pardon the expression. The statement clearly states that these are non-ritualized blessings and therefore should not be interpreted as a marriage.
ABC: How should that be interpreted?
Cardinal Fernández: The declaration unequivocally affirms that there is only one marriage (male-female, indissoluble, exclusive, etc.) and that sexual intercourse is permissible only in this context. There is no more classic approach than this.
So much for the favorite of Pope Francis, who is also the new Prefect of the Catholic Church. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former apostolic nuncio to the USA, described Fiducia supplicans as “hypocritical and deceptive”. The people affected would be “deceived and betrayed”. He contradicts Santa Marta's statement that the new declaration reaffirms the “teaching of all times,” as Tucho Fernández claims. In reality it is a “diabolical falsification” and a “blasphemous forgery”. He even sees an “intrinsically evil purpose” at work with the new document, as it deprives God of honor and exposes souls to the danger of damnation: “It prevents people from doing good and encourages them to do evil.
Text/translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Image : Wikicommons/pixabay
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG
