Pope approves blessings for same-sex couples if they don't resemble marriage

[Michie]

Müller: Would We Bless The Mafia?

 

[Michie]

Müller Warns Priests They Will Commit Sacrilege if They Bless SSA “Couples”

 

[Michie]

What Is a Couple?

The only way to make Fiducia Supplicans orthodoxish is to pretend that two words that mean the same thing when used in the same context do not mean the same thing when used in the same context.

crisismagazine.com

 

[Michie]

Bishops of Cameroon Firmly Reject Francis’ Gay Declaration: “Homosexual Practices are a Clear Sign of the Implosive Decadence of Civilizations”

Declaration of the Bishops of Cameroon on homosexuality and the blessing of "homosexual couples". In the face of semantic abuses designed t...

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com

 

[IcyChain]

Vatican II had some sloppy language, enough so that pope John Paul II had to convene a synod to come up with an authoritative key to interpreting the council. It wasn't 'various rad-trads' but the words of Vatican II which needed an authoritative interpretive key. George Weigel explains this well.

There are plenty of rad-trads who reject Vatican 2 to this day, key or no key. Are they justified in rejecting the council because their interpretation of the council leads them to conclude that it contradicts the tradition of the church?

The Church is not a democracy in which the majority makes the truth. Nor is it a dictatorship by any one pope.

Well, what is your view of the governmental form of the church if not either of those? Is it an institution in which individual laypeople are permitted to decide for themselves what the tradition of the church is, in direct opposition to the living magisterium? What is the specific process by which conflicts among differing people in the church are resolved? Who ultimately has the final say?

Let's look at a definition:

Dictator: one holding complete autocratic control : a person with unlimited governmental power​

Here is what Vatican 1 states:

Vatican I's Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus, on the Church of Christ) | EWTN

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.

www.ewtn.com

​

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the "holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons."​

​

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.​

That sounds like the pope has unlimited governmental power over the church to me. If you have concluded something otherwise, I would like to hear your expalnation of exactly what you think it is.

The rad-trads, various as they may be, were right to object to the 'spirit' of Vatican II. Their solutions were not always correct. But that's why John Paul II worked hard on the proper interpretation and implementation of Vatican II. It was a continuity with the past, not a rupture. Now it's a rupture and not a continuity.

Rupture, continuity, spirit or no-spirit, this interpretation or that intepretation, there are still plenty of people who are convicted that Vatican 2 contains heresy, that it contradicts the tradition of the church, and who reject Vatican 2. Are they justified in doing so because they are convicted in thier belief?

Would you really?

I do not know the future but as I stand here today if Pope Francis taught something like that (something that I adamantly believe is against God's law) it is my intention to leave the Church. I understand the structure of the Catholic church to be one that requires submission to the teaching of the pope, and that is not something that my conscience would allow me to submit to, so I would leave. It would cause me to believe that the Catholic Church's claims to be the "one true church" are false and I would go be Eastern Orthodox or Oriential Orthodox, who have both have a valid Mass.

I cannot think of a good reason to stay in a church that has a pope with full power over the church and who is capable of teaching that type of heresy. Can you? If the pope is capable of teaching that type of heresy then what is the need for the pope? He would be substantially no different than any other bishop in the world.

Because we have James Martin doing his blessings for the NYT to publish. You say that 'oh no, that isn't what was endorsed' but until I see James Martin brought to heel about that it is possible to think that just maybe free and rampant sodomy IS the new teaching of the Church. I'm waiting to see if James Martin faces a canon law trial, or on the other hand is made a cardinal. I'm in no rush. But I'm watching. Does this 'friend of Francis' have it right, or blasphemously wrong?

I do not know if Father Martin should be discliplined for that photo. I tend to think that he shold, but I have not investigated that matter. Upon first glance his actions do not strike me as consistent with the document. It appears that he had a news reporter lined up for the photo, and that can hardly be called "spontaneous". Also, if his intention for the photo and posting it on mass media was to give the impressison that homosexual unions are being legitimized, then that would be a violation. His actions there look suspicious to me but I have not passed a final judgment on the matter because I have not investigated it.

Regardless - I think there is a flaw in the form of logic that you appear to use there. If tomorrow morning James Martin decides to take a photograph of a man sodomizing an animal and states that he believes that FS gave him the authority to do so - it does not logically conclude that the document can be interpreted to authorize bestiality if, for whatever reason, Fr. Martin were to escape subsequent disciplne from the Vatican.

You said many times I didn't read the document. It wasn't true the first time you said it.

No, I asked you several times whether you had read the document because you posited a scenario that is explicilty prohibited by the document, and because you quoted ABC News with respect to the document being a major change. If you go back through the thread you will see that I asked you whether you had read it. There was not a single time that I stated that you did not read the document. If you disagree, you are free to post where I stated that you did not read it and I will apologize.

I waded through the word salad of it a few times now. I find cardinal Muller, Philip Lawler, Edward Fesser, archbishop Chaput, and many others to have pegged it. The document is a contradictory mess. The best thing the pope could do right now is say that was only a draft and withdraw it. Call it a trial balloon. withdraw it. I doubt that will happen. In the mean time the Orthodox are somewhere between having cows over this and rolling on the floor uncontrollably in laughter.

Again - there are thousands of priests, bishops, cardinals, theologians, archbishops, and canon lawyers on the planet earth. If I provide the names of 5 people who think the document is well-written does that make us even?

As for people rolling in laughter - plenty of people mocked our Lord when he walked the Earth. That did not make them correct. So I am not worried about the Orthodox or anyone else laughing at what they perceive to be error.

Regardless - I think it would be good for you to make your concerns known to your pastor, bishop and even write the pope himself if you think that the document is a "word salad" and that withdrawing the document is in the best interest of the Church. I do not fault you for being concerned if you think that there are problems with the document. Perhaps good fruit may come if you bring your concerns to your superiors.

 

[Chrystal-J]

The pope has taught inconsistently. For example, in 2021 it was no blessing for irregular unions. In 2023 it’s mental gymnastics to allow blessings of couples in irregular unions.

I agree. You have to do a lot of twisting and turning to get some of these ideas to fit--and they still leave you confused. I still think that this new "blessing" is an attempt to get people to warm up to the idea of having gay weddings in the Catholic Church. That's how it happened in secular society.

 

[IcyChain]

Well, the people are the object of the blessing, but that doesn't mean that the couple is not being blessed. When a priest blesses a marriage he is simultaneously blessing the people in the marriage and the marriage/union itself. The document consistently talks about blessing the couple, for example, "What has been said in this Declaration regarding the blessings of same-sex couples is sufficient to guide the prudent and fatherly discernment of ordained ministers in this regard..." (#41).

I would say that a blessing of brothers blesses both the brothers and the brotherhood they share. The blessing is not intended to affect the individual persons independently of their brotherly relation to one another. This is why you approach the priest with your brother and he blesses you both simultaneously. Else there would be no reason to do it that way.

I did not want to make a point-by-point response to your last post but there were a few things about it that sparked my interest.

It seems to me that the intention of the persons being blessed and the intentions of the priest should come into play when determining whether a blessing is in error. I'm not sure it if is proper to conclude that "a blessing of two people at the same time brings inherently includes a blessing of their relationship" (which is my general take on your statements above).

Let's say you have a small-parish in a small-town where everybody knows each other. There is a gay couple or a divorced-and remarried couple that regularly attends Mass. In all of the situations below the priest and the congregation has full-knowledge of the illegal status of these couples, and at the end of the Mass the priest asks everyone in the church to bow their heads for a blessing:

1) The gay couple has the intention of having their illegal relationship legitimized and blessed, and the priest has the intention of blessing the entire congregation as individuals and to bless their relationships (whether they are gay, straight, divorced, non-divorced, brothers, sisters, or whatever). When the priest offers this blessing, has he sinned?

2) The gay couple has the intention of having their illegal relationship legitimized and blessed, and the priest only has the intention of blessing all of the people as individuals, with no intention of blessing any gay or irregular relationships. When the priest offers this blesing has the priest sinned? Must the priest ask the gay and irregular couples to segregate from those who are being blessed, in order to avoid sin?

3) The gay couple has no intention of having their illegal relationship legitimized or blessed and the priest also has no intention of having their illegal relationship legitimized or blessed. Everyone here only has the intention of blessing or being blessed as individuals. When the priest offers this blessing, has the priest sinned because he blessed the gay couple together at the same time?

4) Let's change the venue and say that we have a small pilgirimage of the Holy Land that is being led by a priest. There are two married couples and one gay couple in a civil union. Let's say the priest is praying with them on the way from one destination to another and he would like to offer a blessing while praying with them. Must the priest segregate the gay couple before he offers the blessing in order to avoid sin?

5) Let's say we have the same pilgrimage but there is only one priest and he is giving a private tour to only one couple that he determines to be gay. During the trip from one destination to another they have a deep conversation about the teachings of the church and the couple expresses a desire to be delivered from their same-sex attraction. The priest prays with them for deliverance of this same sex attraction and after the prayer offers them both a blessing at the same time, the intention being to impart actual grace upon them that can be a catalyst for deliverance from this same-sex attraction. Has the priest sinned by offering this blessing?

 

[zippy2006]

I'm not sure it if is proper to conclude that "a blessing of two people at the same time brings inherently includes a blessing of their relationship" (which is my general take on your statements above).

See what I said later in that same post:

A priest could bless two people at the same time, but this does not mean that the two people are a couple. When a priest blesses a couple as a couple, he is doing more than merely blessing two unrelated people simultaneously.

So no, simultaneous blessing is not necessarily a blessing of any relationships involved. The problem is not simultaneity, it is the fact that a couple is being blessed.

 

[concretecamper]

There are plenty of rad-trads who reject Vatican 2 to this day, key or no key. Are they justified in rejecting the council because their interpretation of the council leads them to conclude that it contradicts the tradition of the church?

Vatican II offered nothing new to the Church. Can you express what VII did for the Church?

 

[IcyChain]

See what I said later in that same post:


So no, simultaneous blessing is not necessarily a blessing of any relationships involved. The problem is not simultaneity, it is the fact that a couple is being blessed.

Thanks. Then I think we are back to square one - does "blessing a couple" in the document mean blessing the two people in the relationship simultaneously, or does it mean blessing the relationship itself. To me, the documents clearly indicate the former but we have been down that road already. . .

Merry Christmas.

 

[IcyChain]

Vatican II offered nothing new to the Church. Can you express what VII did for the Church?

For example, the liturgy was reformed to more suitably meet the needs of our own times. If you want more detail on that I am sure that you know what document to read.

Merry Christmas

 

[chevyontheriver]

There are plenty of rad-trads who reject Vatican 2 to this day, key or no key. Are they justified in rejecting the council because their interpretation of the council leads them to conclude that it contradicts the tradition of the church?

No. But I expect less of them reject the words of the council than the implementation of the 'spirit' of the council.

Well, what is your view of the governmental form of the church if not either of those? Is it an institution in which individual laypeople are permitted to decide for themselves what the tradition of the church is, in direct opposition to the living magisterium? What is the specific process by which conflicts among differing people in the church are resolved? Who ultimately has the final say?

It is a hierarchy of vicars of Christ in the bishops with the principal vicar being the bishop of Rome. None of those bishops owns the Church or dictates how the Church is to go. They are servants of the Lord, not inventers of new schemes of blessing to get around the blasphemy of blessing the unblessable. They don't have that authority. They are preservers of the deposit of the faith.

That sounds like the pope has unlimited governmental power over the church to me. If you have concluded something otherwise, I would like to hear your expalnation of exactly what you think it is.

They are vicars. Not dictators. How is it this pope has earned the title 'Dictator Pope"? How is it his blue language floats around Vatican City like diesel fumes? How did he get a whole book of insults to his name? Which predecessors were like that?

Rupture, continuity, spirit or no-spirit, this interpretation or that intepretation, there are still plenty of people who are convicted that Vatican 2 contains heresy, that it contradicts the tradition of the church, and who reject Vatican 2. Are they justified in doing so because they are convicted in thier belief?

Is the hermeneutic of continuity out the window now? Seems so.

I do not know the future but as I stand here today if Pope Francis taught something like that (something that I adamantly believe is against God's law) it is my intention to leave the Church. I understand the structure of the Catholic church to be one that requires submission to the teaching of the pope, and that is not something that my conscience would allow me to submit to, so I would leave. It would cause me to believe that the Catholic Church's claims to be the "one true church" are false and I would go be Eastern Orthodox or Oriential Orthodox, who have both have a valid Mass.

I cannot think of a good reason to stay in a church that has a pope with full power over the church and who is capable of teaching that type of heresy. Can you? If the pope is capable of teaching that type of heresy then what is the need for the pope? He would be substantially no different than any other bishop in the world.

You may be far closer to the door of the Catholic Church than I am. I would at least expect that the pope could excommunicate me if he has had enough of me. Until then I'm only agreeing with him if he manages to endorse what is true and good and beautiful. Otherwise no. I do not feel compelled to accept or endorse sin to stay tight with him. I have a prior obligation to the Lord. And I wouldn't mind telling the pope of that.

I do not know if Father Martin should be discliplined for that photo.

It's not that a photo was taken, but that photo captured something James Martin did under the claimed authority of the pope and cardinal Fernandez.

I tend to think that he shold, but I have not investigated that matter. Upon first glance his actions do not strike me as consistent with the document.

I expect he will be revealed as a consultant in the formation of this document. No information on who was consulted has been released yet.

It appears that he had a news reporter lined up for the photo, and that can hardly be called "spontaneous".

True.

Also, if his intention for the photo and posting it on mass media was to give the impressison that homosexual unions are being legitimized, then that would be a violation. His actions there look suspicious to me but I have not passed a final judgment on the matter because I have not investigated it.

I will wait and see if James Martin is corrected or not.

Regardless - I think there is a flaw in the form of logic that you appear to use there. If tomorrow morning James Martin decides to take a photograph of a man sodomizing an animal and states that he believes that FS gave him the authority to do so - it does not logically conclude that the document can be interpreted to authorize inappropriate behavior with animals if, for whatever reason, Fr. Martin were to escape subsequent disciplne from the Vatican.

The document said nothing about sodomizing any animals. Was I not reading it broadly enough? Is that a mere 'irregular relationship'? Would James Martin be blessing that kind of 'relationship' as well? That might be a bridge too far even for him.

No, I asked you several times whether you had read the document because you posited a scenario that is explicilty prohibited by the document, and because you quoted ABC News with respect to the document being a major change. If you go back through the thread you will see that I asked you whether you had read it. There was not a single time that I stated that you did not read the document. If you disagree, you are free to post where I stated that you did not read it and I will apologize.

Again - there are thousands of priests, bishops, cardinals, theologians, archbishops, and canon lawyers on the planet earth. If I provide the names of 5 people who think the document is well-written does that make us even?

If you think you are even, so be it.

As for people rolling in laughter - plenty of people mocked our Lord when he walked the Earth. That did not make them correct. So I am not worried about the Orthodox or anyone else laughing at what they perceive to be error.

Regardless - I think it would be good for you to make your concerns known to your pastor, bishop and even write the pope himself if you think that the document is a "word salad" and that withdrawing the document is in the best interest of the Church. I do not fault you for being concerned if you think that there are problems with the document. Perhaps good fruit may come if you bring your concerns to your superiors.

Maybe my archbishop and the pope. Perhaps the pope can then add me by name to his enemies list which you claim he does not have.

 

[concretecamper]

the liturgy was reformed to more suitably meet the needs of our own times

Can you explain the changes in the litugy dictated by VII?

Merry Christmas

 

[zippy2006]

Thanks. Then I think we are back to square one - does "blessing a couple" in the document mean blessing the two people in the relationship simultaneously, or does it mean blessing the relationship itself. To me, the documents clearly indicate the former but we have been down that road already. . .

Yes we have. But the thing is, no one objects to the notion that two people can receive a blessing at the same time, regardless of their personal sins. If this is all the document intended then its aim is in no way controversial (but also, in this case there would be no need for an innovation of the theology of blessings, or a separation from liturgical contexts, or the possibility of scandal, etc.).

Merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas.

 

[IcyChain]

Can you explain the changes in the litugy dictated by VII?

Maybe. I'm no expert but I have a general understanding of some of the changes, and my own views on what was improved. This could be an interesting discussion.

 

[IcyChain]

Yes we have. But the thing is, no one objects to the notion that two people can receive a blessing at the same time, regardless of their personal sins. If this is all the document intended then its aim is in no way controversial (but also, in this case there would be no need for an innovation of the theology of blessings, or a separation from liturgical contexts, or the possibility of scandal, etc.).


Merry Christmas.

Thank you.

I do not think that the primary purpose of Fiducia is to clarify the proper object of blessings. That topic is squarely addressed and answered in the first document (the Responsum):

For this reason, it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex. The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan.​

​

I think the first document is 100% clear that the object of the blessing cannot be an improper relationship.

The Responsum also teaches that the individuals in the same-sex relationship can be the object of the blessing:

The answer to the proposed dubium does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations[10], who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching. Rather, it declares illicit any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such.​

Given the fact that Responsum clearly indicates that an improper relationship cannot be the object of a blessing, and that the Fiducia appears to confirm the Responsum and also contains several clear statements that an improper union cannot be blessed, it does not seem reasonable to me to interpret "blessing a couple" to mean "blessing an improper relationship."

I will admit that the term "blessing a couple" can be ambiguous if interpreted in isolation. But as with Sacred Scripture and most other documents that we interpret, if we have an ambiguous statement, we interpret it in light of the clear statement. Because the documents are otherwise so clear that improper relationships cannot be blessed, it seems unreasonable to me to make so much out of one term in the document and conclude that Pope Francis has decided to teach the exact opposite of what he taught two years ago.

Also, if we have a statement that is capable of interpretation in a negative light and a positive light, I think its basic Catholic theology that we are supposed to give the statement the charitable interpretation . . . I do not think it is right to posit that the document has been made intentionally ambiguous for the purpose of giving people license to bless sin, as some have insinuated in this thread. . .

As to your last point - it seems that some people (not you in particular) have concluded that the teachings on blessings in the document (noting different types of blessings in different contexts) is a backdoor attempt to approve making same-sex relationships the object of the blessing in informal settings. Here, I think a different perspective is that in considering the questions that were put to him, Pope Francis saw an opporunity to correct what he viewed as overly-limited view that some people had about blessings. If Pope Francis had written Parts I and II as a seprate document and had completely omitted Part III, I think that many people would agree that it was a nice contribution to the deposit of faith. It doesn't have to be the case that Part II of the document was written for the sole-purpose of justifying the blessings that are discussed in Part III. . .

But like anyone else, I could be wrong. I will study the document more and some of the criticisms of it.

 

[IcyChain]

Things have gotten a little heated in this thread. Even though we all have different views on how these documents should be interpreted and what our response should be, I think that all of us are trying to follow the Lord in the way that we understand to be correct. I have forgotten this a few times during the course of the discusion and some of my comments have lacked charity as a result. For that, I was wrong and I apologize. I hope that everyone had a nice Christmas.

 

[IcyChain]

Is the hermeneutic of continuity out the window now? Seems so.

How about we apply the hermeneutic of continuity to the Responsum and the Fiducia?

 

[chevyontheriver]

How about we apply the hermeneutic of continuity to the Responsum and the Fiducia?

Tried that. Not seeing that the document is anything but a contradiction. To me it tried at continuity in the beginning but then finished off in rupture. Now I'm just waiting to see how James Martin's recent actions will be addressed by the authors and how the German schismatics in all but name will be addressed. The proof of the recipe is usually in the pudding. Is James Martin correct and this is a big change, or was it absolutely nothing like some people hope?

 

[IcyChain]

Tried that. Not seeing that the document is anything but a contradiction. To me it tried at continuity in the beginning but then finished off in rupture.

That's fair. It's only been a few days. You can always try again should you be so-moved. Likewise, I could also be wrong and should study more of the criticisms. In any case, I will not be blessing any gay couples myself anytime soon.

Now I'm just waiting to see how James Martin's recent actions will be addressed by the authors and how the German schismatics in all but name will be addressed. The proof of the recipe is usually in the pudding. Is James Martin correct and this is a big change, or was it absolutely nothing like some people hope?

We will see what happens but I think it will be years before all of this drama plays out to a final resolution. Regardless, I have faith that the Church will ultimately get things right.

Merry Christmas