A Response to 6 Common Myths Surrounding the Fiducia Supplicans Document Page 1 of 14

Myth #1: A Pope can never err or promulgate heretical doctrines by reason of his being Pope.
Here, there will simply be shared quotations from the Saints, Church Councils, and Catholic Theologians.
“It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his
prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the
imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11,
‘Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight
path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.’..We must also remember that when a
man reproves his prelate charitably, it does not follow that he thinks himself any better, but merely that
he offers his help to one who, ‘being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger,’ as
Augustine observes in his Rule quoted above.” St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae II-II.33.4

“Therefore he says, but when they had come, namely, from Judea, Peter withdrew from the
converted gentiles and separated himself from them. This he did because he was fearing them who were
of the circumcision, i.e., the Jews, not with a human or worldly fear but a fear inspired by charity,
namely, lest they be scandalized, as is said in a Gloss. Yet he feared unreasonably, because the truth must
never be set aside through fear of scandal..The occasion of [Paul’s] rebuke was not slight, but just and
useful, namely, the danger to the Gospel teaching. Hence he says: thus was Peter reprehensible, but I
alone, when I saw that they, who were doing these things, did not walk uprightly unto the truth of the
Gospel, because its truth was being undone..That, they were not walking uprightly is so, because in cases
where danger is imminent, the truth must be preached openly and the opposite never condoned
through fear of scandalizing others.. Therefore, if it is unlawful to say that anything false is contained in
Sacred Scripture, it will not be lawful to say that Peter was not deserving of rebuke..Therefore from the
foregoing we have an example: to prelates, indeed, an example of humility, that they not disdain
corrections from those who are lower and subject to them; to subjects, an example of zeal and freedom,
that they fear not to correct their prelates, particularly if their crime is public and verges upon danger to
the multitude.” St. Thomas Aquinas’ Commentary on Galatians

“Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every
decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy
See – they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations.” Dominican Theologian Melchior Cano

“It seems, then, that there are extreme cases in which Conscience may come into collision with
the word of a Pope, and is to be followed in spite of that word.” St. John Henry Newman’s Letter to the
Duke of Norfolk

“[In an earlier document] I was writing simply historically, not doctrinally, and, while it is
historically true, it is in no sense doctrinally false, that a Pope, as a private doctor, and much more
Bishops, when not teaching formally, may err, as we find they did err in the fourth century..I mean still,
that in that time of immense confusion the divine dogma of our Lord's divinity was proclaimed,
enforced, maintained, and (humanly speaking) preserved, far more by the "Ecclesia docta" than by the
"Ecclesia docens;" that the body of the Episcopate was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of
the laity was faithful to its baptism; that at one time the Pope, at other times a patriarchal, metropolitan,
or other great see, at other times general councils, said what they should not have said, or did what
obscured and compromised revealed truth; while, on the other hand, it was the Christian people, who,
under Providence, were the ecclesiastical strength.” St. John Henry Newman’s Note 5: The Orthodoxy of
the Body of the Faithful during the Supremacy of Arianism
A Response to 6 Common Myths Surrounding the Fiducia Supplicans Document Page 2 of 14

“Although it clearly follows from the circumstance that the Pope can err at times, and command
things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not
show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be
obeyed and in what not... it is said in the Acts of the Apostles, ‘One ought to obey God rather than man;’
therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the
truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in
such commands to be passed over.” Cardinal John de Torquemada

“As it is lawful to resist the Pope, if he assaulted a man’s person, so it is lawful to resist him, if he
assaulted souls, or troubled the state, and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I
say, to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and hindering the execution of his will.” St. Robert
Bellarmine

“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact
alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body
cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.” St.
Antonius

“Great as our filial duty of reverence is towards what ever [the pope] may say, great as our duty
of obedience must be to the guidance of the Chief Shepherd, we do not hold that every word of his is
infallible, or that he must always be right..Even today a Bishop might expostulate with a Pope, who, in his
judgment, might be acting in a way which was liable to mislead those under his own charge, and then
write to his critics that he had not hesitated to pass strictures upon the action of the successor of S.
Peter..The hypothesis is quite conceivable, and in no way destroys or diminishes the supremacy of the
Pope.” Cardinal Raphael Merry del Val’s The Truth of Papal Claims

“Any private person has the duty to resist, impede and defend [himself and his neighbor against
physical attack by the pope]. Therefore, the pope who is publicly doing harm to the church ought to be
resisted to his face..There are many ways by which, without rebellion, [they] can bring resistance to bear
and hinder the abuse of power. Let them oppose the abuse of power which destroys by suitable
remedies such as not obeying, not being servile in the face of evil actions, not keeping silence, by arguing
and by urging leaders to follow the example of Paul and his precept found at the end of the Epistle to the
Colossians [4:17]: ‘Tell Archippus, 'See that you fulfill the ministry which you have received in the Lord."
[Do this] and there will be little or no abuse of power.’” Cardinal Thomas Cajetan

“The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would
cease to be a member of the Church.” 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia

“For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his
revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and
faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.” Vatican Council I

“Cessation of pontifical power. This power ceases: (d) Through notorious and openly divulged
heresy. A publicly heretical pope would no longer be a member of the Church; for this reason, he could
no longer be its head.” Institutiones Iuris Canonici 1921

“The power of the Roman Pontiff is lost: (c) By his perpetual insanity or by formal heresy.”
Manuale Iuris Canonici 1927

“A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church;
therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” Ius Canonicum 1943
A Response to 6 Common Myths Surrounding the Fiducia Supplicans Document Page 3 of 14

“The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases by death, free resignation (which is valid without need
for any acceptance, c.221), certain and unquestionably perpetual insanity and notorious heresy.”
Epitome Iuris Canonici 1949

“It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a
heretic – if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability
was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible. If indeed
such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any
sentence, indeed without a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the
Church.” Friar Matthaeus Conte a Coronata

“Still less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown
to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe
is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for
nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men’.” Pope Innocent III Sermon 4

“The living teaching office of the Church..is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching
only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it
faithfully.” Vatican Council II

“The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: the
Pope's ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own
ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God's Word, in the face of
every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism.” Pope Benedict XVI

“When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that
some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies..If, despite a loyal effort on the
theologian's part, the [deficiencies] persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the
Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify
it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a
profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and
provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a
clearer presentation of the arguments..For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a
situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer,
but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.” Donum Veritatis

Myth #2: Jacob received a blessing while in sin and was never punished for it.
Here there are two opposite conclusions. The first is that Jacob was not being deceitful at all in
Genesis 27 as he had lawfully earned the blessing through the purchase of Esau’s birthright in the prior
chapters. This conclusion is not very compelling, as there is a clear distinction in the text between the
‘birthright’ and the ‘blessing’, only one of which Esau sold to Jacob. The other conclusion is that Jacob
DID partake in an act of deceit against Esau and Isaac, which would then explain their anguish after
finding out what had happened, and Jacob’s secrecy in attaining the blessing in the first place. This then
begs the question: Does this mean that sinful or inappropriate blessings should be commonplace, today?

Fortunately, the book of Genesis itself answers this question. After being instructed by his
mother Rebekah to steal the blessing of Esau, Jacob immediately protests, saying “I shall bring a curse on
myself and not a blessing.” Rebekah makes no attempt to discredit that this action might bring about a
curse, instead she acknowledges that it WILL, saying “Let your curse be on me, my son.” The results of
this are evident; Rebekah never again sees her son Jacob, lives out the remainder of her life with Esau
whom accumulates multiple pagan wives (as well as Esau’s lineage becoming Edom, one of the greatest
A Response to 6 Common Myths Surrounding the Fiducia Supplicans Document Page 4 of 14

enemies and sources of violence perpetuated against the Israelites), and her final statement in Genesis
leading with “I am weary of my life.” The lesson to be learned here is one of caution, not an approval of
sinful blessings.

Myth #3: The Bible/Jesus expects us to accommodate the sinner where they are. (Usually
inserted after this is the statement that Jesus ate with sinners and prostitutes.)
While it is very true that Jesus reached out to the lowest of sinners rather than the righteous, He
always did so in a way that NEVER implied they can continue sinning. On the contrary, in Luke 5:31-32 He
spoke of these people as being “sick” and that His purpose, rather, was calling them “to repentance.”
Twice in John’s Gospel does he tell the sinner to go and “Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon
you.” Usually this was met with repentance from the individual and forgiveness, but in a few cases the
sinner refused to leave their sin and Jesus responded quite harshly. To the man who didn’t want to give
up his wealth and materialism Jesus said “I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom
of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich
man to enter the kingdom of God.” Jesus went further than just the individual in Matthew 11:20-23 and
“began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not
repent: ‘Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you
had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to
you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you,
Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hell.’” At one point, in John
6:60-67, Jesus heard His disciples grumbling against His teachings and rebuked even them, saying “Does
this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? It is the Spirit
who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. But
there are some of you who do not believe.” This rebuke caused many of His disciples to reject Jesus and
leave Him, calling to mind Jesus’ earlier teaching that “wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to
destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way
which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”

Myth #4: A priest would always bless anyone who asks them, anyway, without digging into
whether they’re living a life of sin or not. Adding blessings for homosexual “unions” is no
different.
The distinction between a spontaneous blessing of a person of unknown lifestyle and the
spontaneous blessing of a homosexual “union” is vast. This is best explained in an analogy:
If a woman carrying a baby were to walk up to someone in public and ask “can you help me get him into
his car seat?” Most people would help without batting an eye or asking any questions. If later it turned
out that this woman had stolen the baby, as distraught as the person who helped would be they
wouldn’t be at any fault; they acted in good faith with the benefit of the doubt that everything was fine.
Now if the woman carrying the baby were to say “I stole this baby, can you help me get him into his car
seat?” The absolute worst thing to do would be to oblige, as the benefit of the doubt is gone and the
misconduct is apparent.
Priests have spontaneously blessed persons of unknown lifestyles as they usually have had no
reason to think anything illicit was occurring, and thus acted in good faith and with the benefit of the
doubt. If something actively illicit WERE occurring, like incest, polygamy, homosexuality, etc. then he
would have blessed it by accident, not by intention, and the sin is not the fault of the priest but the
individual asking for it’s blessing. By one spontaneously requesting a blessing from the Priest of a
homosexual “union”, the benefit of the doubt is gone and the unrepentant sinful lifestyle is made
apparent; the only action left for the Priest to do, in accordance with the Word of God, is exhort them to
repentance.
A Response to 6 Common Myths Surrounding the Fiducia Supplicans Document Page 5 of 14

Myth #5: Homosexuality isn’t that big of a deal.

¹The Christian position on sexuality is anchored in the Old Testament and Ancient Hebrew
tradition. The indispensable framework for interpreting the New Testament teaching on sexuality is
Genesis 1–2, the creation narrative. We read in Genesis 1:26–27 that God made man in His own image,
and the image of God is reflected in two distinct genders, male and female. The distinction between man
and woman is then underlined in the fuller account of their creation in Genesis 2:18–25. The physical
differentiation of the man and the woman, and yet the complementarity of such for bearing children,
explains to us that marriage consists of the union of one woman and one man. The creation narrative,
then, functions as the paradigm for males and females, and how they are to relate to one another
sexually.

As we read the rest of the Old Testament, we see that the it clearly and consistently proscribes
homosexual behavior: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” “If a man
lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” The story of
Sodom and Gomorrah blends into this same pattern. Some claim that the sin is not homosexuality per
se, but homosexual rape, and hence the text does not speak to “loving” monogamous homosexual
relationships. It is probably the case that on its own this text cannot be pressed to yield a comprehensive
indictment of homosexuality. Given the fabric of Old Testament revelation as a whole, however, the
homosexual dimension of the sin, and not exclusively the attempted homosexual rape, testifies to the
egregiousness of the evil in view. Indeed, Jude 7 confirms this interpretation, “Sodom and Gomorrah,
and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual
immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal
fire.” Jude does not concentrate on the attempted homosexual rape but the desire to engage in sexual
relations with those of the same sex, and the letter identifies such as intrinsically evil.

It should also be noted that ancient Hebrew literature consistently and unanimously speaks
against homosexual practices:

“But you, my children, shall not be like that discern the Lord who made all things, so that you do
not become like Sodom, which departed from the order of nature.” Testament of Naphtali 3.4

“Do not transgress with unlawful sex the limits set by nature, for even animals are not gratified
by intercourse of male with male. And let women not imitate the sexual role of men.” Psuedo-Phocylides
190–92, 210–14

“[Sodom], like cattle, threw off from their necks the law of nature and applied themselves to
forbidden forms of intercourse. Not only in their mad lust for women did they violate the marriages of
their neighbors, but also men mounted males without respect for the sex nature. Then, as little by little
they accustomed those who were [by nature] men to submit to play the part of women, did they
emasculate their bodies.” Philo, Abr.1.135-136

“But then, what are our laws about marriage? That law owns no other mixture of sexes but that
which nature hath appointed, of a man with his wife, and that this be used only for the procreation of
children. But it abhors the mixture of a male with a male.” Josephus, Against Apion, 2.199

“For most other [non-Jewish] men defile themselves by promiscuous intercourse, thereby
working great iniquity, and whole countries and cities pride themselves upon such vices. For they not
only have intercourse with men but they defile their own mothers and even their daughters.” Aristeas
1.152
A Response to 6 Common Myths Surrounding the Fiducia Supplicans Document Page 6 of 14

“This place has been prepared for those who do not glorify God, who practice on the earth the
sin which is against nature. God convicts the persons who are idol worshipers and sodomite fornicators
and for this reason he brings down the flood upon them…For I know the wickedness of mankind, how
they have rejected my commandments, not fearing God and not worshiping me, but they began to
worship vain gods, And all the world has been reduced to confusion by iniquities and wickednesses and
abominable fornications that is, friend with friend in the anus, and every other kind of wicked
uncleanness which it is disgusting to report.” 2 Enoch 34.1-2

“No two unmarried men may sleep together under the same cover.” Mishnah Kiddushin 4.13b-
14a

Those who advocate homosexuality frequently say that the New Testament rarely proscribes
homosexuality and that Jesus himself never speaks on the issue. But it is vital to recall that Jesus, and all
the writers of the New Testament, are heirs of the Hebrew tradition, and the Hebrew interpretive
tradition regularly, and without exception, indicted homosexuality. Hence, the real question is whether
New Testament writers departed from this part of the tradition they inherited. When we consult the
evidence, it is clear that they occupy the same stream carved out for them by the Jewish tradition that
preceded them. Jesus Himself, by His reading of the creation account in Mark 10:5-12, indicates that
marriage does not include same-sex relationships. He then went even further to define marriage as the
union of one man and one woman for life. Jesus did not liberalize the Old Testament view of marriage so
as to embrace polygamy or divorce, nor did He open any door to homosexual relationships. On the
contrary, He taught that the creation account clarified the divine intention.

The most important text regarding homosexuality in the New Testament is Romans 1:26–27. We
learn from this text and the surrounding context that all sin, including homosexuality, is a consequence
of idolatry. The fundamental and root sin, therefore, is not homosexuality or any other erroneous
behavior. The sin that provokes God’s wrath and leads to all other sin is the worship of the creature
rather than the creator: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness..Therefore God also gave them up
to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged
the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator..For this
reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is
against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one
another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their
error which was due.”

The reason homosexuality is proscribed here is that it is contrary to nature (παρα φυσιν, para
physin). The reference to ‘nature’ also indicates that Paul refers back to the creation account, to what
God intended when he created men and women. This also echoes Stoic and Hellenistic Jewish traditions,
which saw homosexual relations as a violation of the created order.

Paul also speaks against sexual immorality and homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 5, 6:9 and 1
Timothy 1:10: “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual
immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! And you are
puffed up [arrogant], and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken
away from among you. Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole
lump? Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are
unleavened..I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I
certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or
extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to
you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an
A Response to 6 Common Myths Surrounding the Fiducia Supplicans Document Page 7 of 14

idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. For what have
I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who
are outside God judges. Therefore, put away from yourselves the evil person.”

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived.
Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were
some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the
Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God..Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the
body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. Or did you not know that your
body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your
own?”

“The law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the
ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers,
for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any
other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which
was committed to my trust.”

In both letters he used the term ἀρσενοκοίτης, arsenokoitai, to designate the sin of
homosexuality. Paul’s use of the word represents its first occurrence in Greek literature. Dr. David Wright
explains that Paul derived the term from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. When we look at both of these texts
in the LXX, they read: kai meta arsenos ou koimēthēse koitēn gynaikos bdelygma gar estin (Lev. 18:22);
kai hos an koimēthē meta arsenos koitēn gynaikos bdelygma epoiēsan amphoteroi thanatousthōsan
enochoi eisin. ‘Arsenokoitai’ is then a Pauline innovation deriving from the phrase, arsenos koitēn in the
two texts from Leviticus. The term itself literally means “man bedding”. In other words, it is a vivid way
of denoting same sex intercourse between males. Some who advocate homosexuality suggest that the
term arsenokoitai refers only to those who exploit others sexually, and thus cannot be limited to same-
sex relations. Such a broadening of the term, however, does not fit with either the background of the
term in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 or the basic meaning of the word: a male bedding a male.
Furthermore, the pairing of arsenokoitai with μαλακοὶ, malakoi (lit. effeminate, used in Greek literature
to denote the passive partner in a male homosexual act) in 1 Corinthians 6:9 indicates that homosexual
relations are in view. Paul could have used the more technical term paiderastēs (a pederast) if he had
intended to restrict his comments to exploitative sex. If the only problem in view were sex that exploits
others, there would be no need for Paul to mention a passive partner as well since he would be the one
being oppressed, and not the oppressor.

The New Testament continues to, in many places, speak out against sexual immorality in general:
“Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions,
heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also
told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Galatians
5:19-21
“You must abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from
sexual immorality.” Acts 15:29

“But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is
fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather
giving of thanks. For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an
idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
A Response to 6 Common Myths Surrounding the Fiducia Supplicans Document Page 8 of 14

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the
sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them.” Ephesians 5:3-7

“Finally then, brethren, we urge and exhort in the Lord Jesus that you should abound more and
more, just as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God; for you know what
commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that
you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel
in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God.” 1
Thessalonians 4:3-5

“Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the
soul.” 1 Peter 2:11

“Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness,
passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” Colossians 3:5

Myth #6. If we admonish a believer who is actively/proudly taking part in a life of sin, they
will simply leave the Church altogether. To prevent this, we shouldn’t constantly call attention
to their sinful lifestyle, but instead focus on the softer, more comfortable parts of the Gospel.
“The Church's teaching, and in particular her firmness in defending the universal and permanent
validity of the precepts prohibiting intrinsically evil acts, is not infrequently seen as the sign of an
intolerable intransigence..this intransigence is said to be in contrast with the Church's motherhood. The
Church, one hears, is lacking in understanding and compassion. But the Church's motherhood can never
in fact be separated from her teaching mission, which she must always carry out as the faithful Bride of
Christ, who is the Truth in person. As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm. The Church
is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose
image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm
and proposes it to all people of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and
perfection..The Church can never renounce the principle of truth and consistency, whereby she does not
agree to call good evil and evil good". Veritatis Splendor 95

From here, I will simply share quotations from Holy Scripture:

“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying
ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking
for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself
for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people,
zealous for good works. Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority.” Titus 2:11-15

“I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the
dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season.
Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not
endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will
heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth. But you be watchful
in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” 2 Timothy 4:1-5

“Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who
abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not
bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his
evil deeds.” 2 John 9-11
A Response to 6 Common Myths Surrounding the Fiducia Supplicans Document Page 9 of 14

“Remember those who lead you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow,
considering the outcome of their conduct. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not
be carried about with various and strange doctrines.” Hebrews 13:7-9

“If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world,
but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” John 15:19 “For all that is in the
world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the
world.” 1 John 2:16

“Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it
necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all
delivered to the saints. For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this
condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God
and our Lord Jesus Christ.” Jude 3-4

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous
wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad
fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown
into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.” Matthew 7:15-20

“As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that
they teach no other doctrine..This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies
previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, having faith and a good
conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, of whom are
Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I [excommunicated] that they may learn not to blaspheme.” 1 Timothy
1:3, 18-20

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to
deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared
with a hot iron..Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Take heed to yourself
and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear
you.” 1 Timothy 4:1-2, 13-16

And finally, from our Lord Jesus Christ Himself:

“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him
if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to
sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell,
into the fire that shall never be quenched— where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.
And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two
feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— where the worm does not die and
the fire is not quenched.’ And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the
kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire— where the worm
does not die and the fire is not quenched.” Mark 9:42-47

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the
water of life freely to him who thirsts. He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and
he shall be My son. But the cowardly, unbelieving and sinners, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral,
sorcerers, idolaters, and liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which
is the second death.” Revelation 21:6-8
A Response to 6 Common Myths Surrounding the Fiducia Supplicans Document Page 10 of 14

Responses from Catholic Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and Clergy as of 1/14/2024:

“To bless couples in an irregular situation and same-sex couples is a serious abuse of the most
Holy Name of God, since this name is invoked upon an objectively sinful union of adultery or of
homosexual activity. Therefore, none, not even the most beautiful, of the statements contained in this
Declaration of the Holy See, can minimize the far-reaching and destructive consequences resulting from
this effort to legitimize such blessings. With such blessings, the Catholic Church becomes, if not in
theory, then in practice, a propagandist of the globalist and ungodly ‘gender ideology.’ As successors of
the Apostles, and faithful to our solemn oath on the occasion of our episcopal consecration ‘to preserve
the deposit of faith in purity and integrity, according to the tradition always and everywhere observed in
the Church since the time of the Apostles’, we exhort and prohibit priests and the faithful of the
Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana from accepting or performing any form of blessing whatsoever of
couples in an irregular situation and same-sex couples. It goes without saying that every sincerely
repentant sinner with the firm intention to no longer sin and to put an end to his public sinful situation
(such as, e.g., cohabitation outside of a canonically valid marriage, union between people of the same
sex) can receive a blessing.” Archbishop Tomash Peta

“This document clearly, albeit cunningly, undermines the natural and revealed law of God
regarding marriage and the meaning and exercise of human sexuality. Therefore, it cannot be the
expression of the Church’s authentic Magisterium and forfeits any binding authority. For the authentic
Magisterium ‘is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on,
listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully.’” Bishop Athanasius Schneider

“Despite its claims to the contrary, the Declaration blatantly contradicts the perennial magisterial
teaching of the Church concerning irregular marriages and the sexual activity of same-sex couples..I
propose that any pontifical teaching or teaching from bishops that overtly and deliberately contradicts
the perennial teaching of previous councils and pontiffs is not magisterial teaching, precisely because it
does not accord with past magisterial doctrinal teaching. The pope or a bishop may be, by virtue of his
office, a member of the magisterium, but his teaching, if it contradicts the received previous magisterial
teaching, is not magisterial. Such false teaching simply fails to meet the necessary criteria. It possesses
no ecclesial authoritative credentials.” Father Thomas G. Weinandy, 2005-2013 Executive Director of the
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Doctrinal Office

“[A] question we asked was whether a priest could agree to bless these ‘unions’, some of which
coexist with a legitimate marriage or in which it is not uncommon for partners to change. According to
FS, he could do so with a non-liturgical, non-official “pastoral” blessing. This would mean that the priest
would have to give these blessings without acting in the name of Christ and the Church. But this would
mean that he would not be acting as a priest. In fact, he would have to give these blessings not as a
priest of Christ, but as one who has rejected Christ. In fact, by his actions, the priest who blesses these
‘unions’ presents them as a path to the Creator. Therefore, he commits a sacrilegious and blasphemous
act against the Creator's plan and against Christ's death for us, which meant to fulfill the Creator's plan.
The diocesan bishop is concerned as well. As pastor of his local church, he is obliged to prevent these
sacrilegious acts, otherwise he would become an accomplice to them and would deny the mandate
given to him by Christ to confirm his brethren in the faith.” Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, 2012-2017
Head of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
A Response to 6 Common Myths Surrounding the Fiducia Supplicans Document Page 11 of 14

“Based on Sacred Scripture which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (cf. Gen
19:1-29; Rm 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tm 1:10), the Conference reaffirms the traditional teaching of the
Church that declares ‘homosexual acts to be intrinsically disordered and contrary to natural law’. Hence,
‘under no circumstances can they (homosexual acts) be approved. In order to avoid any pastoral
confusion and ambiguity as well as not to break the law of our country which forbids same-sex unions
and activities, and while listening to our cultural heritage which does not accept same-sex relationships,
the Conference guides that the Declaration from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith of December
18th, 2023 concerning the blessing of same-sex couples be taken as for further reflection and not for
implementation in Zambia.” Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops

“Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?
Negative. In order to conform with the nature of sacramentals, when a blessing is invoked on particular
human relationships, in addition to the right intention of those who participate, it is necessary that what
is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of
God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. Therefore, only those realities which are
in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by
the Church..The Church does not have, and cannot have, the power to bless unions of persons of the
same sex.” Cardinal Luis Francisco Ladaria, 2017-2023 Head of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith

“Since practicing sexual acts outside marriage, that is, outside the indissoluble union of a man
and a woman open to the transmission of life, is always an offense against the will and wisdom of God
expressed in the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, people who are in such a relationship cannot
receive a blessing. This applies in particular to people in same-sex relationships. In response to the
question: Does the Church have the authority to bless same-sex unions? the answer is: Negative. We
read this in the Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of February 22, 2021, approved by
Pope Francis. ‘The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which in themselves deserve
recognition and appreciation, cannot, however, justify them and thus make them a legitimate object of
ecclesial blessing, because these elements serve a relationship that is not directed according to the
Creator's plan.’” Polish Episcopal Conference

“We have no choice; we cannot allow such an offensive and apparently blasphemous declaration
to be implemented in our diocese. We direct that for pastoral reasons, blessings of any kind and for
same sex unions of any kind, are not permitted in Malawi.” Bishop Martin Anwel Mtumbuka

“Responding to numerous appeals from bishops, clergy, monastics, church movements, and
individual laypeople of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church concerning the Declaration of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "Fiducia Supplicans" (December 18, 2023) regarding the
pastoral sense of blessings, after consultations with relevant experts and competent institutions, I wish
to communicate the following..Based on Canon 1492 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, this
Declaration pertains strictly to the Latin Church and does not hold legal force for the faithful of the
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church..In the traditions of the Byzantine Rite, the concept of blessing signifies
approval, permission, or even instruction regarding certain types of acts and prayerful-ascetic practices,
including specific forms of fasting and prayer. It is evident that a blessing from a minister always carries
an evangelistic and catechetical implication. Therefore, in no way should it contradict the teaching of the
Catholic Church about the family as a faithful, indissoluble, and fruitful union of love between a man and
a woman, which our Lord Jesus Christ elevated to the dignity of the Sacrament of Matrimony. Pastoral
responsibility urges us to avoid ambiguous gestures, expressions, or concepts that would distort or
misrepresent the Word of God and the teaching of the Church.” Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk
A Response to 6 Common Myths Surrounding the Fiducia Supplicans Document Page 12 of 14

“Regarding informal blessings for 'irregular couples' (homosexuals), although it is a different

sacrament from the liturgical blessing, we consider that, in our cultural and ecclesiastical context, they
would create an enormous scandal and confusion among the faithful, which is why we determine that
they should not be carried out in Angola and São Tomé.” Episcopal Conference of Angola and São Tomé
“In respect of the law of the land, our culture and for moral reasons we instruct pastors to desist
from actions that may be deemed as the blessing of same sex unions bringing confusion and even
scandal to our people.” Zimbabwe Catholic Bishop Conference
“[It is] another thing to bless a homosexual couple. There it is no longer the blessing of the
persons, but of the couple, and the entire tradition of the Church, even a document from two years ago,
says that it’s not possible to do this.” Cardinal Daniel Sturla
“We see no situation in which such a blessing of a couple could be properly and adequately
distinguished from some level of approval. Thus, it would inevitably lead to scandal – to the individuals
concerned – to those involved directly or indirectly in the blessing – or to the minister himself..We
believe that genuine charity always follows true doctrine and that such blessings would work against the
legitimate care a priest owes is flock. With honest parresia and from our own experience as pastors we
conclude that such blessings are pastorally and practically inadmissable.” UK Confraternity of Catholic
Clergy
“Marian clergy are prohibited from blessing irregular relationships, unions, or same-sex couples
in the United States and Argentina, or while travelling abroad..We see no situation in which such a
blessing of a couple could be properly and adequately distinguished from some level of approval of the
irregular relationship, leading to the scandal of the faithful. Such blessings (liturgical or spontaneous)
would work against the legitimate care a priest or deacon owes his flock.” Marian Fathers of the
Immaculate Conception"
“Those who ask for a blessing to seek to justify their relationship before God don't really realize
that it is exactly their relationship that separates them from God. If your relationship is non-sacramental
- you are in a sexual relationship, heterosexual or homosexual, that's not in marriage - your very ‘union’
prohibits God from entering the relationship. So here's the point everybody, your relationship is a
roadblock to God's grace. Why would we bless the roadblock?" Very Reverend Chris Alar, MIC
“Faithful to the constant teaching of Ecclesial Tradition which declares acts of homosexuality
intrinsically disordered and contrary to the natural law (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2357), we,
the Bishops of Cameroon, reiterate our disapproval of homosexuality and homosexual unions.
Consequently, we formally forbid all blessings of ‘homosexual couples’ in the Church of Cameroon.”
Episcopal Conference of Cameroon

“Cohabitating couples (heterosexual or homosexual) if blessed together give the impression that
their relationship is acceptable in the eyes of the Church, which it is not. While a cleric can ‘bless’ any
human person, he cannot bless immoral or disordered behavior. Loving the sinner does not mean loving
the sin. Jesus commanded the woman caught in adultery to “sin no more.” He did not ‘bless’ her lifestyle
but He forgave her sins. Likewise, as we cannot bless abortions, pornography, marital infidelity, child
abuse, terrorism, and all grave evils (like fornication and adultery), we must also avoid conflating
immoral things with those who commit them. Prudence requires us to avoid sending the wrong message
and. Moral truth is as precious as dogmatic truth..Admonishing sinners is still a work of mercy and
obscuring their moral vision is not; even if it is called a ‘blessing.’” US Confraternity of Catholic Clergy

“With the publication of the declaration Fiducia Supplicans, on the blessing of homosexual
couples and of heterosexual marriages who live in an irregular situation..It is scandalous that this
statement contradicts what two years ago the Dicastery affirmed with the signature of Cardinal Luis
Ladaria. In that statement it was said that a homosexual couple cannot be blessed because God cannot
bless sin. That is the truth. Every blessing implies God’s complacency in the person, or the object
A Response to 6 Common Myths Surrounding the Fiducia Supplicans Document Page 13 of 14

blessed.. The Church is inclusive by nature, since it was formed thanks to Christ’s command to the
Apostles: to address all nations. And the history of the Church shows that from the beginning all peoples
have been incorporated into it. This declaration constitutes a true scandal which, decorated by pretexts,
contrasts the secular doctrine on marriage..In conclusion, Fiducia Supplicans should not be obeyed. And
it is perfectly correct to deny blessings to homosexual “marriages,” and to marriages living in an irregular
situation.” Archbishop Hector Aguer

“Authentic pastoral and spiritual care can never be divorced from an unambiguous presentation
of God’s plan for human sexuality and marriage since this plan, though challenging for some to accept, is
essential for human flourishing and so is a gift rather than a burden..Ordained priests are ministers of
God’s blessings given to sanctify the human person and build up all that is true, good, and beautiful in
human life. While sinful human persons who seek God’s mercy are authentic recipients of God’s
blessings, such blessings of their nature are ordered to communion with God; to conversion and
sanctification, and so can never be bestowed on sinful acts nor legitimize relationships that are
intrinsically incompatible with the divine plan.” AUS Confraternity of Catholic Clergy

“In the diocese of Formosa the requests and suggestions from the Sacred Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith will not be observed. The laity were unanimous in saying ‘yes, the blessings would
cause scandal.’ Of the priests who responded, practically all said ‘the application (of the Vatican
document) would bring misunderstanding and scandal..People in these situations also need to be guided
regarding the doctrine of the Church, the tradition of the Church and the guidelines of the authentic
magisterium of the Church.” Bishop Adair José Guimarães

“Just as from a liturgical point of view, a blessing requires that what is blessed be conformed to
God’s will, so too, even blessing outside of the liturgical rite requires whatever is blessed confirms to
God’s will..The pastoral practices of the Church regarding marriage and family are always based on the
Gospel of Christ which leads to eternal life (John 6:68), and the enduring practices of the Church rooted
in the Apostolic Tradition. It is for this reason that the Church excludes those living in irregular situations
of marriage from full sacramental participation in the life of the Church, as they are invited to remedy
their objectively sinful situation and are accompanied with (by) pastoral care..Homosexual unions are
against reason, against nature and against African culture. Any form of blessing of same-sex unions and
activities would go against God’s word, the teachings of the Church, the African cultural traditions, the
laws of our nations, and would be scandalous to the faithful..All clergy residing and ministering in the
Archdiocese of Nairobi are prohibited from blessing irregular relationships, unions, or same sex couples.”
Archbishop Philip Anyolo

“Truths are eternal and do not change with the spirit of the age. In other words, popes and
bishops do not bring anything of their own, but interpret the constant faith of the Church along the lines
of tradition without breaking with it. It therefore remains the case that a sinful practice and union
cannot be blessed because it contradicts the order of creation and the will of God, and in such a case,
the blessing can neither be fruitfully given nor received (cf. the justification in the Responsum ad dubium
of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the blessing of unions of persons of the same sex
from 2021 under Card. Ladaria)..You cannot bless a couple but not bless their union, [or] bless a couple
but not ‘convalidate’ their objectively sinful lifestyle.” Bishop Marian Eleganti

“The Congregation of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer stands with Cardinal Müller, the
bishops of Malawi, Kazakhstan, Zambia and Nigeria, with Archbishop Viganò, Bishop Strickland and all
bishops, priests and faithful who recognise that the priestly blessing of couples in "irregular
relationships" and the blessing of "homosexual couples" is opposed to Catholic Faith and Morals;
opposed to the teaching of the Church for the last two thousand years; and must be opposed by us and
by all Catholics.” Congregation of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer
A Response to 6 Common Myths Surrounding the Fiducia Supplicans Document Page 14 of 14

“When the devil tries to persuade us to sin, he emphasizes the supposed good of the evil action
he wants us to do, while overshadowing the aspects that are necessarily contrary to God’s
commandments. He does not say to us: ‘Sin and offend the Lord who died for you on the Cross’, because
he knows that a normal person does not want evil in itself, but that he usually does evil under the
appearance of good..If this Document, together with other more or less official pronouncements, really
had as its purpose the good of adulterers, concubinaries, and sodomites, it should have pointed out to
them the heroism of Christian witness, reminded them of the self-sacrifice that Our Lord asks of each
one of us, and taught them to put their trust in God’s Grace in order to overcome trials and live in
conformity with His Will.. I exhort all those who have been awarded the dignity of Cardinal, my Brothers
in the Episcopate, priests, clerics and faithful to oppose most firmly this mad race towards the abyss to
which a sect of renegade apostates would like to force us. I implore the Bishops and Ministers of God –
by the Most Holy Wounds of Our Lord Jesus Christ – not only to raise their voices to defend the
immutable teaching of the Church and to condemn deviations and heresies, under whatever appearance
they may appear; but also to warn the faithful and prevent these sacrilegious blessings in their Dioceses.
The Lord will judge us on the basis of His holy Law, and not on the pharisaic seductions of those who
serve the Enemy.” Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

“The document is a doubleminded exercise in simultaneously affirming and undercutting

Catholic teaching on the nature of blessings and their application to ‘irregular’ relationships. And it was
quickly interpreted as a significant change in Church practice. Father James Martin, a longtime advocate
for LGBT concerns, was promptly photographed blessing a gay couple in a New York Times article..Over
the past decade ambiguity on certain matters of Catholic doctrine and practice has become a pattern for
the current pontificate. The pope’s criticism of American Catholics has too often been unjust and
uninformed. Much of the German Church is effectively in schism, yet Rome first unwisely tolerated
Germany’s ‘synodal path,’ and then reacted too slowly to preclude the negative results. Saying these
things, of course, will invite claims of “disloyalty.” But the real disloyalty is not speaking the truth with
love. And that word ‘love’ is not some free-floating balloon of goodwill. It’s an empty shell without the
truth to fill it..But in the end, pastoral leaders are accountable for their words and their actions. Because,
as St. Paul said so long ago, ‘God is not the author of confusion but of peace.’” Archbishop Charles J.
Chaput
“Taking into consideration the recognized right of the faithful to receive from sacred pastors the
help that comes from the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the Word of God, the sacraments and
the sacramentals (cf. can. 213, can. 1170), we say NO to any form of blessing of same-sex couples.”
Episcopal Conference of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
“Since this declaration totally contradicts what Pope Francis himself approved in 2021
concerning same-sex unions—that may in no manner be blessed because the Church cannot ask God to
bless sin—I hereby prohibit all priests in the Catholic Diocese of Wote from blessing couples in irregular
situations or same-sex couples.” Bishop Paul Kariuki Njiru
“In history, with the kinds of issues that we’re facing, a pope would call for a council. That isn’t
likely to happen now, but we need a united voice, something like a council, to address the confusion and
the issues that continually arise to know the truth of Jesus Christ that is unchanging..We really simply
need to be a united voice saying, ‘no,’ we will not respond to this. We will not incorporate this into the
life of the Church because we simply must say ‘no.’ And it needs to be a united voice.” Bishop Joseph
Strickland

Holy Bible: The New King James Version. 1982. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. As found in the Logos Bible study software program.
¹Schreiner, Thomas R. A New Testament Perspective on Homosexuality Volume 31 - Issue 3, The Gospel Coalition.