Answer me, Fiducia Supplicans

From the net

The eighteenth day of the twelfth month of the year of the Lord 2023 will forever remain in the hearts of the same sex relationship activists worldwide.

It is on this day that, through the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith, in the document named Fiducia Supplicans, on the pastoral meaning of blessings, Pope Francis made clear the possibility of blessing the same sex relationships.

It is to be understood that Fiducia Supplicans is a prolongation of the papal negative response vis-à-vis a Responsium ad dubium regarding the blessing of unions of persons of the same sex published on 15^th March 2021 by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

Fiducia Supplicans states in its thirty first paragaraph that :  

“Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex…”

What should not escape all of us are the conditions sine qua non the declaration gives so as to receive such a blessing. There are two fundamental conditions in the validity of any blessing, for the latter is a sacramental.

First is the Form.

As it is known, in the understanding of the sacraments, the Form is immaterial aspect of the ceremony. In other words it’s the formula or the words or even the gestures involved. 

In this case, the declaration insists that “the form… should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities” n.31.

This indeed, leaves the ordained minister the liberty of the use of appropriate words of blessings, on the one hand, but also restricts him neither to use the Liturgical outlined blessings imparted on the couples just towards the end of the Sacrament of Matrimony, nor to “provide for (or) promote a ritual for the blessings of couples in an irregular situation” n.38, on the other hand.

Therefore, it leaves a first fundamental question unanswered. What if the ordained minister after cramming the words and the rite as it is in the Liturgical book of blessing proceeds to use the exact formula without physically referring to the book, will it still remain a blessing?

Second is the Matter.

This refers to the material. In this case it is the persons themselves to be blessed.

Primo: The recipients, couples in irregular situations and same sex unions need to admit that they are in a disordered union, “recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help” n.31. 

This opens a second fundamental question unanswered. Do they really admit that they are in a disordered union and in need of help from God, whose grace works through nature?

Secundo: they should express the “desire to entrust themselves to the Lord and his mercy, to invoke his help, and to be guided to a greater understanding of his plan of love and of truth.” N.30.

This leads to a third fundamental question unanswered. Is this desire expressed through writing? If not, how will the ordained minister know the recipients’ desire?

Tertio: the recipients of this blessing should not be dressed or perform any gesture in a manner that suggests it is a wedding or a civil union ceremony. Dress code is cultural and at times hard to decipher.

This concludes a fourth fundamental question unanswered. How will the ordained minister understand the dress code of the matter to be blessed?

We are not in any manner animated by a judgmental spirit, but are in the path of understanding the truth, hence pastorally profess our faith.

 

Thunderous slap

I personally find this disturbing. 

That at this precarious period of our history, when every call, through cooperates even spiritual spheres, is to respond to the climate change through tree planting, a president of a republic advocates the cutting of trees with simple reason that “Miti inaoza kwa msitu na watu wanahangaika hawana mbao…” [Trees are rotting in the forest while people are looking for timber]. 

What a thunderous slap on the face of ecological activists. 

It is even further worrying to lift the veto to protect the forest cover from destruction by tree cutting industry during the Catholic Church service, a global religious institution widely known for its protection and care of the environment. 

What a thunderous slap on the face of the Universal Church. 

Hence, keeping in mind its timing and place, this lifting of the ban was done neither in good faith nor for the common good. 

Was it even necessary for H.E. Dr. William Ruto, the President of Kenya, to lift the ban in the precincts of the Catholic Church, worse even, in front of the Altar during a Holy Mass at St Mary’s Catholic Church, Molo in Nakuru county, yet it is the same Church that in its supreme Social Teachings ardently advocates for the care of the environment? 

The Church states that all human beings have a prime responsibility to look after the natural resources. For this duty is embedded in the very nature of us being humans. When we destroy the environment we are destroying our own selves. 

The latest ecclesiastical appeal to take care of the environment, our home, was officially made through an Encyclical letter, Laudato Si, by the current Pope Francis on the 24th May 2015. 

Narrowed down in Kenya, the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops implements this universal call to make better our environment through the Commission of Justice, Peace and Development. Yearly in the forty day Lenten sojourn, the latter publishes the Lenten Campaign Booklet. It is a manual of weekly simple reflections and concrete solutions on matters of Social concern like justice, reconciliation, governance, education, ecology, etc. 

Yet in a country, like Kenya, that is more than three quarter arid and semi-arid, actually with only 12.13 percent forest cover according to the National Forest Resources Assessment 2021 report, encouraging forest destruction, in the name of job creation and opening up business, is a slow suicide mission for the country and the world at large. 

Is the Kenya Vision 2030 concerning the planting of trees to cub the low forest cover already attained? Do our people have a tree planting culture? Who, then, will benefit from the presidential lifting of this logging ban pronounced on 2nd July 2023? 

The poor... Not really. 

Since Kenya has no timber processing industries, one would not convince that by cutting down trees jobs are created for the poor youth. May be it will open up dirty business for the tycoons! The cut trees will find their way to the Mombasa port for an overseas destiny. They will then be raw material for some other people’s jobs very far away from Kenya. In the end, to whom did the cutting of trees create job? Who gets paid? Whose life is ameliorated? 

Meanwhile the locals will pay dearly facing the harsh climate caused by felling down their trees. In the mean time, the first greedy beneficiaries, leaders, will enjoy the cool temperatures of their air conditioned rooms and vehicles. 

My little prophesies, therefore. 

First, there has been relatively peace in these forest areas six years down the logging ban period. But with this lift of the ban, watch out on the rebirth of conflicts and unnecessary malaise within the neighboring communities, illegal loggers, black-market etc. 

Second, the next moratorium to be lifted is the use of the plastic or polythene bags. Watch, it will come no sooner than later! Be ready for that thunderous slap. Are you?