| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 366 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 363 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google
|
|
|
| Vatican again endorses ‘blessing’ homosexual ‘couples,’ just not ‘formally’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - Yesterday, 07:56 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
 |
Vatican again endorses ‘blessing’ homosexual ‘couples,’ just not ‘formally’
Cdl. Fernández reaffirmed ‘spontaneous,’ non-liturgical ‘blessings’ of same-sex couples remain permitted under Fiducia Supplicans,
even as Rome rejected Germany's formalized guidelines.
![[Image: Untitled-7.png]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Untitled-7.png)
Argentine cardinal and Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith Victor Manuel Fernandez presides over the sixth Novemdiales Mass held for the late Pope Francis in St. Peter's Basilica, on May 1, 2025, in Vatican City
Photo by Antonio Masiello/Getty Images
May 7, 2026
(LifeSiteNews [adapted - not all hyperlinks included from original]) — Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, the prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), confirmed that the Vatican had rejected the German bishops’ conference’s (DBK) proposed official guidelines for the formal “blessings” of homosexual and other irregular “couples” in a 2024 letter.
In a statement to Vatican News published May 6, Fernández confirmed that back in 2024, the DDF wrote a letter to Bishop Stephan Ackermann of Trier in Germany saying that the DBK’s proposed guidelines for the “blessing” of homosexual “couples” contradict the 2023 Vatican document Fiducia Supplicans, which allows for the spontaneous, “non-liturgical blessing” of homosexuals.
The cardinal prefect stressed that the text, which was published by the Vatican on May 4, also served as a rejection of the DBK’s official guidelines for the “blessings” of homosexual “couples,” the divorced and civilly “remarried,” and other “irregular unions,” citing “the pastoral approach of the pontificate of Pope Francis,” published just months after the DDF’s letter was sent. However, the Vatican continues to allow the “blessing” of same-sex “couples” in “spontaneous,” “non-liturgical” settings.
“What was said in that letter … also applies to the text of the current Vademecum, which does not have the approval of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” Fernández said.
As previously reported by LifeSiteNews, in his 2024 letter, Fernández underscored that, per Fiducia Supplicans, the Church does not have the power to “liturgically” bless homosexual “couples.”
“The Declaration Fiducia supplicans states that: ‘The Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when this, in some way, could offer a form of moral legitimization to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice’ (n. 11, nor to those who claim ‘the legitimization of their own status, (cf. n. 31)’” Fernández wrote.
“In the text of the Vademecum, however, there is mention of a union and an ‘official regulation,’ on the part of pastors, of couples who are outside of marriage – with those pastors also becoming the object of a genuine ‘acclamation,’ a gesture that is normally part of the marriage ritual,” he added. “In this sense, the Vademecum effectively legitimizes the status of such couples, in a manner contrary to what is affirmed in Fiducia supplicans.”
The cardinal added that the DBK’s proposal would sow confusion among the faithful.
However, while Fiducia Supplicans may not allow for the formal, liturgical “blessing” of homosexual “couples,” numerous prominent Catholic prelates have condemned the document for permitting the “blessing” of homosexual “couples” as “couples” at all, and have accused it of causing confusion.
Cardinal Gerhard Müller, who served as the head of the Congregation (now Dicastery) for the Doctrine of the Faith before Fernández, in a 2024 essay for First Things, urged Church leaders and the faithful to reject these “blessings” endorsed by Pope Francis because they contradict Catholic teaching and “lead to heresy.”
“Fiducia Supplicans must be considered doctrinally problematic, for it contains a denial of Catholic doctrine,” the German prelate wrote.
Müller warned that such a proposal is “contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church” and “logically leads to heresy.”
“This means that these pastoral blessings for irregular unions cannot be accepted by the Catholic faithful, and especially by those who, in assuming an ecclesiastical office, have taken the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity, which calls first of all for the preservation of the deposit of faith in its entirety,” he wrote.
In April 2025, just days after the death of Pope Francis, the DBK and the lay organization Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK) announced that they had adopted the text of the guidelines during a joint conference.
The “blessings” are meant to be an offer for “divorced and remarried couples, couples of all [so-called] gender identities and sexual orientations, as well as couples who do not want to or cannot receive the sacrament of marriage for other reasons,” per the DBK.
The guidelines state that the “blessings” can be carried out by clerics as well as laypeople with an episcopal assignment. The ceremony for the “blessings” should be marked by “greater spontaneity and freedom with regard to the life situation of those who ask for the blessing.”
However, it’s worth noting that the document is not legally binding and merely represents “practical advice.” “For this reason, no approved liturgical celebrations and prayers are planned for the blessings,” the document states.
Fernández’s statement to Vatican News also confirms an October 2025 report, which revealed that the DDF did not approve these guidelines, despite claims made by German bishops that suggested it had.
|
|
|
| Israeli soldier desecrates statue of Blessed Virgin Mary in southern Lebanon |
|
Posted by: Stone - Yesterday, 07:52 AM - Forum: Anti-Catholic Violence
- No Replies
|
|
Israeli soldier desecrates statue of Blessed Virgin Mary in southern Lebanon
The Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land issued a firm rebuke calling the incident ‘disrespectful and outrageous behaviour that must stop immediately.’
![[Image: Untitled-1.png]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Untitled-1.png)
Our Lady of Graces of the Miraculous Medal
iStock/Getty Images Plus
May 7, 2026
(LifeSiteNews) — A photograph showing an Israeli soldier desecrating a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary in southern Lebanon has sparked widespread outrage, particularly among Christian communities.
The image, which surfaced publicly this week, was taken in the predominantly Christian village of Debel and shows the soldier smoking a cigarette while placing another cigarette in the mouth of the Blessed Virgin Mary statue.
Christian leaders have strongly condemned this latest incident of desecration, with the Custodia Terrae Sanctae (Custody of the Holy Land), the Franciscan religious order responsible for Catholic holy sites in the region, issuing a firm rebuke calling the incident “disrespectful and outrageous behaviour that must stop immediately.”
“We call on the Israeli government and the IDF to act and send a clear message that such behaviour is unacceptable, must not happen again, and that the case be handled with the utmost seriousness,” the Franciscans further demanded.
The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) said they are investigating the incident. In a statement, the military claimed it viewed the matter “gravely” and promised to take action against the soldier involved.
Desire to suppress Christianity ‘without raising international alarm bells’
This is the second such desecration reported in Debel in recent weeks. On April 19, a photograph surfaced on X and other social media outlets showing an Israeli soldier smashing the head of a statue of Jesus Christ with a sledgehammer. The image quickly went viral and sparked global outrage among Christians, including the Catholic bishops of the Holy Land who issued an “unreserved condemnation” of the desecration.
Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa stated that the act “constitutes a grave affront to the Christian faith and adds to other reported incidents of desecration of Christian symbols by IDF soldiers in southern Lebanon.”
Following the public outcry, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office condemned the act, and the two soldiers involved—one who wielded the sledgehammer and another who filmed it—were reportedly removed from combat duty and sentenced to 30 days in jail.
READ: Israel replaces smashed statue of Jesus, arrests soldiers who destroyed it
Close observers have noted that Israeli authorities reserve such swift condemnations and action against anti-Christian desecrations, vandalism and physical attacks to when they gain widespread global attention and risk eroding U.S. and other international support for Israel.
This decision to take disciplinary action against the two soldiers is noteworthy, as it contrasts with the Israeli military’s typical handling of alleged violations by its troops. In the vast majority of such investigations, soldiers are ultimately cleared of wrongdoing.
This pattern was confirmed by a Catholic priest and longtime resident of Jerusalem in a LifeSiteNews interview in April. Citing sources, he explained how the Israeli policy in dealing with the Christian presence in the Holy Land reflects an intentional effort “to limit church apostolic activity as much as possible without raising international alarm bells.”
‘Judeo-Chrtistian’ values ‘one of the biggest lies in history’
Israel repeatedly claims that it does not target religious sites, yet the long ongoing history of their destroying clearly identifiable Christian religious buildings and symbols tells a completely different story.
READ: Catholic leaders in Holy Land decry escalating Jewish attacks against Christians, shrines
In his commentary on the desecration of the Blessed Virgin Mary statue, British Catholic analyst George Galloway called it a “particularly repugnant and provocative display” of “anti-Catholic hatred,” especially in the month of May, which is dedicated to Our Lady.
He cited “a dramatic spike in the desecration of Catholic churches, attacks on Catholic pilgrims, (and) attacks on nuns in the streets of Jerusalem by so-called Israeli settlers.”
Such behavior reveals “what the attitude to Jesus Christ the Messiah is in Israel,” along with “the attitude to the followers of Jesus Christ and his Holy Mother Mary in this month of May,” he said. And all of this puts an end “to the notion that there is anything called Judeo-Christian values. This is one of the biggest lies in history.”
|
|
|
|
| Massachusetts town defends St. Michael statue against anti-Catholic ACLU challenge |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-07-2026, 08:39 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
Massachusetts town defends St. Michael statue against anti-Catholic ACLU challenge
The ACLU and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court launched hostile attacks against St. Michael and St. Florian statues because they are connected to Catholicism.
![[Image: shutterstock_2667584967-2.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/shutterstock_2667584967-2.jpg)
Statue of Saint Michael the Archangel
meunierd/Shutterstock
May 6, 2026
(LifeSiteNews [slightly adapted - not all hyperlinks included from original]) — The town of Quincy, Massachusetts, is continuing its battle against the ACLU over proposed statues of St. Florian and St. Michael the Archangel.
The city said that religious imagery is common at public buildings, including a statue of Moses at the state supreme court building. Meanwhile, liberal justices largely focused on complaining that the statues might be identified with Catholicism.
The state Supreme Judicial Court held a hearing today as it considers whether the town should be allowed to put up two statues of the saints outside of its public safety building.
The justices asked the city’s attorney to defend the statues against the much-criticized 1971 Lemon Supreme Court case and its subsequent “test” for determining religious freedom cases. However, that case is no longer the primary religious freedom standard used by the nation’s top court.
A coalition of religious groups, free speech scholars, and first responder unions are calling on the state’s supreme court to allow the statues. Meanwhile, the left-wing ACLU wants to see a permanent ban on the statues. In October, an activist judge blocked the statues, as LifeSiteNews previously reported.
The statues are a symbol of “courage,” Quincy’s attorney Joseph Davis argued today.
The attorney noted that the Supreme Judicial Court itself, along with several others, has statues of Moses as well.
“A number of fire departments” use the “Florian cross,” the attorney said, responding to a hostile judge who asked if other fire departments had the saint statues outside.
Other fire and police departments, including in Los Angeles and New York City, have similar statues outside, the attorney told left-wing Associate Justice Gabrielle Wolohojian.
Just because a statue has a “religious significance” does not mean it cannot have “broader significance,” the attorney argued.
He also pointed out that using the religious names of someone does not mean that they only have “religious significance.”
Associate Justice Serge Georges picked up on the hostile questioning line, complaining that the statues may have a “secular” meaning but also have a religious background.
Fellow justice Scott Kafker also complained that the saints are “Catholic,” ignoring legal briefs that established other religious groups’ interest in the saints. Justice Wolohojian jumped back in to complain about the saints.
“They have a mixed significance,” Davis responded.
Wolohojian continued on with her questioning and suggested that “the citizens of Quincy” might be offended by the “government speech” of the public safety building having the statues.
Davis pointed out other courthouses also have religious statues, with Wolohojian interrupting him to say there are other statues besides Moses at court buildings.
“This is the fire and police building,” Davis argued, pointing out the statues represent firefighters and police officers.
ACLU attorney Jessie Rossman followed Davis and urged the judges to block the city from putting up the statues, arguing that they promote “divisiveness.”
She argued that religious beliefs should be confined to private buildings and not “government buildings.”
However, a judge pushed back and asked why existing statues should not be treated the same way.
The ACLU attorney acknowledged that statues or symbols that had been up for a long time, such as 100 years, could be upheld.
Making a new decision to put up new statues could create “divisiveness,” Rossman claimed, and she said that the image having a “Catholic” background was problematic.
Her argument picked up on the general anti-Catholic hostility expressed by the justices as well.
“These statues are conveying a message that [a] particular religion is being elevated above other religious and non-religious beliefs,” Rossman complained.
Some justices, even those that pushed back on the town, questioned Rossman as to her arguments, including that the statues only have a religious meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
