Pope Francis Allows Clergy to Bless Same-Sex Couples

[Euthymios]

It would not preclude Fr. Seraphim Rose or any other former homosexual who had repented. The sins committed by Fr. Seraphim Rose were washed away in the waters of Baptism.

I am just going by what you said about canons prohibiting homosexuals from monasticism.

 

[Euthymios]

My personal view is that men with homosexual backgrounds should never be made priests, because the vice/abomination of homosexuality leaves a stain on the soul. Also, a person would have had to reach an extreme level of human depravity to practice this vice. But this is my personal view, and I would not dare contradict Church teaching and the tradition.

 

[The Liturgist]

My personal view is that men with homosexual backgrounds should never be made priests, because the vice/abomination of homosexuality leaves a stain on the soul. Also, a person would have had to reach an extreme level of human depravity to practice this vice. But this is my personal view, and I would not dare contradict Church teaching and the tradition.

I understand where you are coming from. My concern would be if one had not truly repented and was a danger to boys or young men in the parish or monastery.

However, where a bishop of the stature of St. John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco is confident that a man has repented of it, as he was with Fr. Seraphim Rose, and considering that the sins of Fr. Seraphim Rose were before his baptism, and were therefore washed away, I don’t think we can object to that. Indeed many people already venerate Seraphim Rose, including myself, and I expect he will be glorified as a saint at some point.

 

[Euthymios]

I understand where you are coming from. My concern would be if one had not truly repented and was a danger to boys or young men in the parish or monastery.

However, where a bishop of the stature of St. John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco is confident that a man has repented of it, as he was with Fr. Seraphim Rose, and considering that the sins of Fr. Seraphim Rose were before his baptism, and were therefore washed away, I don’t think we can object to that. Indeed many people already venerate Seraphim Rose, including myself, and I expect he will be glorified as a saint at some point.

Did St. John Maximovitch endorse Fr. Seraphim being ordained to the priesthood? Or was he just convinced that he had repented? I always considered Fr. Seraphim just a monk who wrote some books and did some translating, but I am not aware of any evidence that he attained to an exceptional level of sanctity.

 

[The Liturgist]

Did St. John Maximovitch endorse Fr. Seraphim being ordained to the priesthood? Or was he just convinced that he had repented? I always considered Fr. Seraphim just a monk who wrote some books and did some translating, but I am not aware of any evidence that he attained to an exceptional level of sanctity.

He was ordained after St. John reposed, however, he was baptized by St. John and also received a blessing to form the brotherhood that later became the St. Herman of Alaska monastery in Platina, California.

The article on Orthodox Wiki is accurate and provides a complete picture of his life: Seraphim (Rose) - OrthodoxWiki

And here on Google Photos you can see the numerous icons written depicting him: icon of fr seraphim rose

His cult of veneration is quite large and includes myself. By the way, have you read Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, or The Soul After Death, or his book on the dangers of Nihilism, or his translation of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky?

I find it surprising that someone as traditionalist as you is not more familiar with his work, since he was a protege of St. John Maximovitch. I strongly reccommend his work Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, which has proven to be prophetic.

His most vocal opponent is the extremely controversial liberal retired ex-schismatic Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, who falsely believes the doctrine of tollhouses to be Gnostic, and who also had to be ordered by Metropolitan Tikhon to stop making pro-LGBTQ statements.

 

[The Barbarian]

As a side note, even if I granted for the sake of argument that people are born gay, that doesn't make homosexuality right, anymore than being born blind or deaf make them right.

And that's what the Catechism says. And it's been that way long before Francis became Pope.

Just so you know @Euthymios and @dzheremi I made this argument back in post 301. I also wish to associate myself fully with your stated opinions on the nature of homosexuality as a voluntary sin, in disagreement with some members advocating Fiducia Supplicans. But if it is involuntary, it is still something to be repented of, and we know that it can be repented of, because of people like blessed Fr. Seraphim Rose of Platina who were delivered of it in the course of baptism or chrismation into Holy Orthodoxy.

The Church distinguishes between propensity to sin and sinning. It is not a sin to be a homosexual. A celibate homosexual, as the Catechism makes clear, is as praiseworthy as a celibate unmarried heterosexual.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Jesus always distinguished between an inclination to sin and sinning. We should follow Him in this, as in all other things.

Actual sin is committed by a free personal act of the individual will...Contrary to the teaching of Baius (prop. 46, Denzinger-Bannwart, 1046) and the Reformers, a sin must be a voluntary act.

Sin

Sin. The subject is treated under these heads: I. Nature of Sin; II. Division; III. Mortal Sin; IV. Venial Sin; V. Permission and Remedies; VI. The Sense of Sin.

www.catholic.com

Consequently, unless one makes a conscious decision to become a homosexual, being a homosexual is not in itself a sin. As the Catechism instructs us. I suspect that this is why some would like to consider it a voluntary act. If one is born with such an inclination, merely being a homosexual is not a sin, and such people can gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Catholic liturgy means the whole complex of official liturgical worship, including all the rites, ceremonies, prayers, and sacraments of the Church. Private blessings and devotions are not liturgy. So if a priest offers a blessing to you in a time of difficulty, that doesn't have to be liturgical.

Who made that up? Cardinal Fernandez without talking to any liturgical specialists. And so now all of a sudden it is true because pope Francis signed off on it. I call shenanigans to that. The UGCC already did.

 

[chevyontheriver]

As a side note, even if I granted for the sake of argument that people are born gay, that doesn't make homosexuality right, anymore than being born blind or deaf make them right. To assume otherwise would commit the Naturalistic Fallacy, also known as the is-ought fallacy. It assumes that what is, ought to be. The truth is that we are all born with corrupted natures and need healing and restoration through Christ. But the good news is that all the in-depth studies do not show a "gay gene" or any evidence that people are born that way.

I was born with a disposition to sin. Therefore is sin OK for me?

 

[The Barbarian]

Catholic liturgy means the whole complex of official liturgical worship, including all the rites, ceremonies, prayers, and sacraments of the Church. Private blessings and devotions are not liturgy. So if a priest offers a blessing to you in a time of difficulty, that doesn't have to be liturgical.

Who made that up? Cardinal Fernandez without talking to any liturgical specialists. And so now all of a sudden it is true because pope Francis signed off on it. I call shenanigans to that. The UGCC already did.

Liturgy is the public prayer and worship of the Church. Liturgical prayers are prayers set by the Church for a particular liturgy (e.g. Mass, confession, baptism, the Divine Office, etc). They differ from private prayers in that they are not the intention of any one person or group but are the prayers of the Church as a whole. As such they should not be altered by the presider since they do not belong to him.

What Is Liturgical Prayer? | Catholic Answers

What is liturgical prayer, and how does it differ from private prayer? Click here for a Catholic answer.

www.catholic.com

 

[The Barbarian]

I was born with a disposition to sin. Therefore is sin OK for me?

It is not a sin to have a disposition to sin. Sin requires a voluntary act.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

What is going on in the Catholic church? Never thought I would have seen this headline in my lifetime.

Pope Francis publishes norms for clergy to 'bless' homosexual couples - LifeSite

Pope Francis’ new document allows clergy to bless any homosexual couple, in contradiction to the unchangeable Catholic teaching that the Church cannot bless sinful relationships.

www.lifesitenews.com

Read this:

Declaration Fiducia Supplicans On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings (18 December 2023)

Declaration Fiducia Supplicans On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings (18 December 2023)

www.vatican.va

5. This is also the understanding of marriage that is offered by the Gospel. For this reason, when it comes to blessings, the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion. Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.

1. Basing itself on these considerations, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Explanatory Note to its 2021 Responsum recalls that when a blessing is invoked on certain human relationships by a special liturgical rite, it is necessary that what is blessed corresponds with God’s designs written in creation and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. For this reason, since the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice. The Holy Father reiterated the substance of this Declaration in his Respuestas to the Dubia of two Cardinals.

31. Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex, the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage. In such cases, a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit. These forms of blessing express a supplication that God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his Spirit—what classical theology calls “actual grace”—so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love.

 

[ralliann]

Schizophrenia, Bipolar, OCD, etc, are not choices, but they are real illnesses. Homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association until 1973. It was only removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1987, due to spurious arguments and politics.

This is why I can't understand all the hoopla of being "born that way". Sure, as a science to attempt to find a cure, or some kind of help, just like they do with other issues.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Catholic liturgy means the whole complex of official liturgical worship, including all the rites, ceremonies, prayers, and sacraments of the Church. Private blessings and devotions are not liturgy. So if a priest offers a blessing to you in a time of difficulty, that doesn't have to be liturgical.


Liturgy is the public prayer and worship of the Church. Liturgical prayers are prayers set by the Church for a particular liturgy (e.g. Mass, confession, baptism, the Divine Office, etc). They differ from private prayers in that they are not the intention of any one person or group but are the prayers of the Church as a whole. As such they should not be altered by the presider since they do not belong to him.

What Is Liturgical Prayer? | Catholic Answers

What is liturgical prayer, and how does it differ from private prayer? Click here for a Catholic answer.

www.catholic.com

Were this about FS then YOU as a non-priest could informally bless those in irregular unions all you want in your private capacity. A priest blesses with the Church as a whole, particularly when he is sought out because he is a priest to deliver a blessing. Any blessing he is asked to do as a priest is liturgical. Just as a prayer of blessing before a meal lead by a head of household is liturgical since the days of Genesis. If you want to do a private and non-liturgical prayer you can do that. A priest represents the Church unless he is so incognito that those requesting his blessing don’t even know he is a priest.

 

[The Barbarian]

Were this about FS then YOU as a non-priest could informally bless those in irregular unions all you want in your private capacity. A priest blesses with the Church as a whole

"They differ from private prayers in that they are not the intention of any one person or group but are the prayers of the Church as a whole. As such they should not be altered by the presider since they do not belong to him."

The idea that a layman can do a blessing that an ordained priest cannot do, sounds pretty much opposed to the entire magisterium of the Church.

It seems as though this is an emotional issue for many rather than a doctrinal one. And I don't seem to be helping in that regard.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The idea that a layman can do a blessing that an ordained priest cannot do, sounds pretty much opposed to the entire magisterium of the Church.

Priests, because of their office in the Church, bless in the name of the Church. Such blessings may be informal but they are liturgical even if cardinal Fernandez says otherwise. He didn't bother consulting with any liturgical specialists.

 

[zippy2006]

Priests, because of their office in the Church, bless in the name of the Church. Such blessings may be informal but they are liturgical even if cardinal Fernandez says otherwise. He didn't bother consulting with any liturgical specialists.

Indeed. Blessings are sacramentals, and sacramentals are inherently liturgical. The idea that they are separate from the liturgy is an abuse, corrected by Vatican II:

61. Thus, for well-disposed members of the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and sacramentals sanctifies almost every event in their lives; they are given access to the stream of divine grace which flows from the paschal mystery of the passion, death, the resurrection of Christ, the font from which all sacraments and sacramentals draw their power. There is hardly any proper use of material things which cannot thus be directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God. (Sacrosanctum Concilium)​

See also the Responsum from 2021:

Among the liturgical actions of the Church, the sacramentals have a singular importance: “These are sacred signs that resemble the sacraments: they signify effects, particularly of a spiritual kind, which are obtained through the Church’s intercession. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions of life are sanctified”[3]. The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies, then, that “sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church’s prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it” (#1670).​

​

Blessings belong to the category of the sacramentals, whereby the Church “calls us to praise God, encourages us to implore his protection, and exhorts us to seek his mercy by our holiness of life”[4]. In addition, they “have been established as a kind of imitation of the sacraments, blessings are signs above all of spiritual effects that are achieved through the Church’s intercession”[5]. (Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium regarding the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex)​

​

The Ukrainian Catholic Church made the same point, referencing their own theology:

3. According to the liturgical practice of our Church, the blessing of a priest or bishop is a liturgical gesture that cannot be separated from the rest of the content of the liturgical rites and reduced to the circumstances and needs of private piety (Catechism of the UGCC “Christ – our Pascha”, paras. 505-509). (Patriarch Sviatoslav Communique on the reception of Fiducia supplicans in the UGCC)​

 

[Euthymios]

He was ordained after St. John reposed, however, he was baptized by St. John and also received a blessing to form the brotherhood that later became the St. Herman of Alaska monastery in Platina, California.

The article on Orthodox Wiki is accurate and provides a complete picture of his life: Seraphim (Rose) - OrthodoxWiki

And here on Google Photos you can see the numerous icons written depicting him: icon of fr seraphim rose

His cult of veneration is quite large and includes myself. By the way, have you read Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, or The Soul After Death, or his book on the dangers of Nihilism, or his translation of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky?

I find it surprising that someone as traditionalist as you is not more familiar with his work, since he was a protege of St. John Maximovitch. I strongly reccommend his work Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, which has proven to be prophetic.

His most vocal opponent is the extremely controversial liberal retired ex-schismatic Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, who falsely believes the doctrine of tollhouses to be Gnostic, and who also had to be ordered by Metropolitan Tikhon to stop making pro-LGBTQ statements.

So, there is no actual evidence that St. John Maximovitch specifically endorsed the ordination of Fr. Seraphim Rose. I am not saying he wouldn't, had he been living at the time. I am very familiar with the life of Fr. Seraphim Rose. I have read all the books you referenced, including "Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works" (2 times), and "Not of This World" ( about 2 1/2 times). I do think that Fr. Seraphim was very pious and an exceptionally good monk. I am also very familiar with all the lies and disinformation coming from the deposed deacon, Lazar Puhalo.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The Ukrainian Catholic Church made the same point, referencing their own theology:

3. According to the liturgical practice of our Church, the blessing of a priest or bishop is a liturgical gesture that cannot be separated from the rest of the content of the liturgical rites and reduced to the circumstances and needs of private piety (Catechism of the UGCC “Christ – our Pascha”, paras. 505-509). (Patriarch Sviatoslav Communique on the reception of Fiducia supplicans in the UGCC)​

This means essentially that the new Vatican teaching is a new roadblock in the path of reconciliation with the Orthodox. I'm wondering too if the Vatican triples down on FS if that might just drive the UGCC away.

 

[Euthymios]

Orthodox emperors enforced laws against homosexuality. The edict of Constantius II (337-361) and Constans (342) extended proscription from active pederasts to passive sodomites and prostitution by exsoleti.

Valentinian II, Theodosius, and Arcadius issued an edict in 392. It prescribed burning as the death penalty for active sodomites, procurers of boys and male prostitutes, or perhaps for any form of homosexuality. The latter view is more probable in light of Codex Theodosius 9.7.6.

Another edict was issued by Justinian in 538. He described homosexuality as contrary to nature. (see Novella 77).

Justinian called homosexuality "abominable and impious conduct deservedly hated by God." (Novella 141).

From the earliest times Church Fathers repeated the New Testament witness for restriction of homosexuality by law. But many Church Fathers condemned homosexuality without referring to legal proscription (See Clement of Alexandria, Paidagogus 2. 10.86f.; 3.3-8, 15-23; St. John Chrysostom, Ad pop. Antioch, hom. 19.7; Didache 5:2; 16.3; Bar. 10.6; 20:2.; Pol. Phil. 5.3; Ign. Eph. 16.1; Apoc. Pet. 32).

The book, "Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition" says that it would be tedious to present all of the evidence from the Church Fathers. In this book, he cites: Ephraim the Syrian, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Gregory, Apos. Constit (6, 11, 27-28), Tertullian —De pudic. 4, where he banishes homosexuals from the church), Cyprian, Eusebius, Basil, and Clement of Alexandria.

St. John Chrysostom condemns homosexuality in his commentary on Romans 1:26-32 (This is one of the most extensive).

Apostolic Constitutions 7:2 says sodomy is unacceptable Christian behavior. (see also the Didache 2.2 and the Epistle of Barnabas 19:4).

 

[FireDragon76]

My personal view is that men with homosexual backgrounds should never be made priests, because the vice/abomination of homosexuality leaves a stain on the soul. Also, a person would have had to reach an extreme level of human depravity to practice this vice.

I don't get that. Do you think priests are that much better than other people? That's dangerous thinking, the stuff of enabling abuse.

And I think the notion that gay people are particularly depraved just is absurd, in my experience. It's a kind of spiritual blindness.