Fr. Thomas Michelet on one of Pope Francis' favorite metaphors

Angelicum

"what to say of a field hospital in which those who are sick sit with those who are well to the point that [it] no longer offers any resistance to the pandemic?  What to make of a barque [of Peter] that has [(aurait, a conditional)] neither compass nor helm, [is] open to all but subject to every wind, [and] shows no longer either the way or any intention of following it?"

"que dire d’un hôpital de campagne où les malades siègent avec les bien-portants au point de ne plus offrir aucune résistance à la pandémie ? Que faire d’une barque de l’Église qui n’aurait ni boussole ni gouvernail, ouverte à tous mais soumise à tous vents, ne montrant plus le chemin ni son intention de le suivre?"

     Fr. Thomas Michelet, O.P., "Peut-on bénir Fiducia supplicans?," Revue thomiste website, January 2024.  Fr. Michelet bends over backwards to read the Declaration and the press release of 4 January 2024 charitably (often with the help of subsequent comments by Pope Francis), and yet says enough throughout to make it pretty obvious that he wishes the thing had been much more carefully composed.  Just quickly from the English translation, for example:

"At the very least, it is regrettable that we have to carry out this work of clarification for him [(À tout le moins peut-on regretter de devoir accomplir à sa place ce travail de clarification)], in order to defuse the bomb that the text potentially contains, without being able to affirm that it's author intended to put it there" (sec. 1).

"The Declaration regrettably did not deem it necessary to make such a distinction from the outset, preferring instead to insist that even in a situation of sin, God preserves for the sinner his unconditional love, his gifts and his blessing, without ever specifying whether he blesses the sin at the same time.  The Communiqué [of 4 January 2024] does not shed any light on this point" (sec. 2).

"Not only can we never bless evil, but we must never let anyone believe that we are doing so in any way whatsoever" (sec. 2).

"The problem lies first and foremost in the use of the word 'couple' for the two categories, 'couples in an irregular situation' and 'same-sex couples', as if they could be put on the same level, regardless of their differences in nature and not just in law, which is a major first in a document from the Holy See.  The previous doctrine from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith refrained from doing this, speaking of union and 'partnership' for people of the same sex, but never of 'couple'.  This helps to trivialize homosexual relationships:  whether you are of either sex or the same sex, you live 'as a couple' in [supposedly] the same way. . . . ."  "The term 'couple' is inappropriate and surprising in a document from a Dicastery that until now had accustomed us to more formal language" (sec. 6).  Etc.

"The key is to know what you are talking about and to whom.  It is best to be specific" (sec. 6).

"Under cover of a supposedly irreproachable orthodoxy, a deviant pastoral approach is gradually taking hold, preparing the ground for the next move, which would be to change the doctrine, and rewrite the Catechism accordingly.  The apparently benign gesture of an informal blessing turns out to be a formidable instrument for scotomising people's minds.  If this was the strategy, it marks what we hope will be a definitive halt.  If it wasn't, it would be a good idea to make this clear in ways other than imprecise press releases that only serve to increase doubt" (sec. 7).

"Should we promote and consecrate a contextual theology and a contextual pastoral ministry that will inevitably lead to contextual dogmatics at the expense of the unity of the faith?" (sec. 8)

"Can Fiducia supplicans be blessed?  neither yes nor no, quite the contrary" (sec. 8).

Etc. (I thought I saw more comments like these in the original French.)