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

[Michie]

Looks that way.

Are they all Protestant too?

 

[Michie]

African bishops v. ‘Fiducia supplicans’

Church leaders in Africa could be forming a powerful united front.

www.pillarcatholic.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

Right, but I don't believe couples will act in this manner, or I would at least say that it would be extremely rare. So you are right that it is not a strict contradiction. "We are a homosexual couple and we want you to bless us to help us stop engaging in homosexual acts." I don't see this as a realistic scenario, although it is technically possible.

We would all be in favor of that, but then would any such ‘couples’ want such a blessing? Rarely? If that is REALLY what this document is about ….

One way to think about it is as follows. When a couple is being blessed as a couple, the thing that unites and pairs them is also being blessed. So to bless a married couple is to bless the marriage which unites them. But if a blessing is ultimately intended to dissolve a coupling, then what unites and pairs the couple is not being blessed (it is, in a relevant sense, being cursed or opposed). In that sense such a blessing would be a blessing of individuals, not a couple, for the intention is that the coupling cease and the individuals separate, at least insofar as their sexual activity is concerned. It is this language of blessing "the couple" that is the difficulty, for one cannot bless a couple as a couple without blessing the thing that makes them a couple.

This. It’s Alice-in-Wonderland to pretend otherwise.

Yes, perhaps. My difficulty is that while it is easy to separate an individual from their sin, it is much more difficult to separate a homosexual couple from their sin. The homosexual activity is precisely what makes them a couple.

…

But you are surely right that the document tries to bless the couple without blessing the sin, so to speak. Still, many of us wonder if this is logically possible.

Only if they are seeking to avoid the sin constituent of their being a couple. Would James Martin’s couples actually say that? I bet he studiously did not ask that question.

 

[Michie]

The Pope and the Black Hole | Dan Hitchens

Pope Francis is still the Vicar of Christ—even if he appears to have collapsed in on himself.

www.firstthings.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

Looks that way.

When do the excommunications begin? So far it’s only removing a bishop from his diocese and taking away an apartment from a cardinal.

 

[Michie]

When do the excommunications begin? So far it’s only removing a bishop from his diocese and taking away an apartment from a cardinal.

Well, give it time. While the brinking clergy are promoted they seem to diligently be working behind the scenes to keep the others in line.

 

[Michie]

Concerned Clergy Share How They Will Respond Pastorally to ‘Fiducia Supplicans’

Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect emeritus of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, is among the clerics who said they won’t confer blessings that can be interpreted as endorsing sinful sexual behavior.

www.ncregister.com

 

[IcyChain]

Are they all Protestant too?

Silly question.

 

[Wolseley]

OK I lied. I am jumping back into the thread.

What a shock.

But I think I understand the way that other people are viewing the document now and what they view as the problem with it. At least now I can see the substance of the objection. The initial reaction by many was more along the lines of various "the pope is trying legalize sodomy" conspiracy theories, so I had trouble taking them seriously.

Well, we make progress, anyway.

The crux of your argument here seems to be "It is wrong. Everybody knows it is wrong. Any attempts to demonstrate otherwise is sophisticated sophistry to attempt to legitimize sin."

Yes. And he is absolutely correct.

That argument is perfectly fine, but it contains no substance. There is nothing really to discuss. Fr. James Martin may as well come on here and post "It is right. Everybody knows it is right. Any attempts to demonstrate otherwise is sophisticated sophistry to attempt to criminalize moral acts."

If two people are arguing over whether water is wet or dry, the easiest way to solve the debate is throw a bucket of said substance into the face of the one claiming it's dry, and then ask him if he's all wet.

People can argue about stuff and come up with all manner of convoluted perambulations to "prove" their stance, but that still doesn't make wet into dry. It's like this "transgender" balderdash: you can have altering surgery. You can take boatloads of hormones. You can dress as a woman or as a man. You can demand that people treat you as whatever you want to be. But that still doesn't make you what you claim you are. You are born with "xx" chromosomes, or with "xy" chromosomes, and nothing you do will ever alter that in any way, shape, form, manner, or conception, no matter how much you might want it to.

Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 5:22 to abstain not only from evil, but from all appearance of evil. That means even if there's any way that something can be perceived as being wrong, you avoid it, whether it's wrong or not. To me, this blessing of homosexuals thing is sort of like eating food offered to pagan idols: maybe it's not technically wrong, but if it's going to cause you problems, or if it causes your weaker brother to stumble, don't do it.

I mean, if the conversation is too complicated for you, please feel free to ignore it and I will carry on the discussion with the person I was having it with.

No need to get snarky, old boy. We're all friends here.

 

[narnia59]

I thought Fr. Mark Goring's takes on the document have been reasonable:

He said he deliberately ignored any media (secular or otherwise) and read the document.

Then he asked the same question I asked. What specific part of the document is in error?

So far, crickets.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Silly question.

Not so silly that someone in this very discussion intimated that to question good pope Francis was Protestant thinking.

 

[IcyChain]

Not so silly that someone in this very discussion intimated that to question good pope Francis was Protestant thinking.

I think you misunderstood me there. In this thread I wrote:

And yeah just to be clear I'm not saying that folks don't have a right to express concerns about the pope or any other bishop. I think I wrote previously in this thread that people have the right to do that but it should be done in a respectful manner, and people should try to interpret the documents in a positive light to the extent possible. I think the vicar of Christ should at least be given the benefit of the doubt and that any criticisms should be thoughtful, researched, well-thought out, and open to the possibility that what the pope has written is correct. At the very least I would expect Catholics to read the actual document before criticizing the contents of it, and that was not always done here . . .​

​

There certainly is an approach or disposition towards the magisterium among some Catholics that I think resembles a Protestant ecclesiology but my view with respect to that is not simply "If any person questions or offers a criticism of the pope he is Protestant."

 

[IcyChain]

He said he deliberately ignored any media (secular or otherwise) and read the document.

Then he asked the same question I asked. What specific part of the document is in error?

So far, crickets.

I think the criticism that Cardinal Mueller offered, and that was subsequently discussed by Zippy, has some substance to it. I do not know if the criticism is ultimately correct but at least that criticism analyzes what is actually written in the document instead of the vague conspiracy theories and "it's just wrong becuase it is obviously wrong" types of arguments that have dominated this thread.

 

[Wolseley]

And, insofar as "is it right or wrong, A or B, black or white, wet or dry, allowable or forbidden", we get two different declarations from Francis, saying, more or less, the exact opposite of one another:

"It is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex.....Furthermore, since blessings on persons are in relationship with the sacraments, the blessing of homosexual unions cannot be considered licit." (Responsum to CDF; 3/15/2021)

and then, a mere two years later, we get this:

"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." (Fiducia Supplicans; 12/18/23)

Now, if he can't make up his mind, how does he expect us to???

 

[Michie]

Multiplying Misinterpretations ​

Perhaps Bursch is right, taking Cardinal Fernández at his word about what he intended to do. Yet within 36 hours of publication, there was a story, complete with photograph, in The New York Times, of Jesuit Father James Martin — a longtime advocate of changing Church teaching on homosexuality — blessing a same-sex couple, and making very clear his understanding that Pope Francis had given him permission and encouragement to do so.

Father Martin also tweeted the day the document dropped: “My take on the historic Vatican declaration on same-sex blessings. ‘As a priest I look forward to blessing same-sex couples, sharing with them the graces that God desires for everyone, something I’ve waited years to do.’”

Jason Steidl Jack, one half of the same-sex couple Father Martin blessed, wrote for Outreach, “an LGBTQ Catholic resource” of which Father Martin is editor: “Blessings for same-sex unions are powerful signs that same-sex couples share in the same channels of grace that all people enjoy.”

If Father Martin is guilty of “intentionally misinterpreting” Fiducia Supplicans, might we expect Cardinal Fernández to express his dismay in a manner commensurate to prominent coverage in The New York Times? Will Father Martin, whose ministry is ostentatiously supported by Pope Francis, be instructed that he made a mistake?

To the contrary, is it instead possible that Fiducia Supplicans is intended to be “misinterpreted” in precisely the way that Father Martin did?

Father Martin is not alone. Given the wide arrayof reactions from around the world, it would seem that “misinterpretations” are multiplying. Several leading European bishops are eager to have same-sex unions blessed in their dioceses and have welcomed Fiducia Supplicans as precisely authorizing just that.

If a document is that quickly and widely “misinterpreted,” then it is not unreasonable to ask whether that may have been the point. The alternative explanation is that it was incompetently written, and Cardinal Fernández is not incompetent.

Continued below.

Ambiguity of ‘Fiducia Supplicans’ Makes Way for Multiplying Misinterpretations

COMMENTARY: The new declaration from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith ensures that no one knows what exactly is being blessed, as it expressly forbids any ritual text that might specify it.

www.ncregister.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

If Father Martin is guilty of “intentionally misinterpreting” Fiducia Supplicans, might we expect Cardinal Fernández to express his dismay in a manner commensurate to prominent coverage in The New York Times? Will Father Martin, whose ministry is ostentatiously supported by Pope Francis, be instructed that he made a mistake?

Waiting.

IF the people who are saying this document makes absolutely no changes are correct one could think that James Martin would be corrected.

Father Martin is not alone. Given the wide arrayof reactions from around the world, it would seem that “misinterpretations” are multiplying. Several leading European bishops are eager to have same-sex unions blessed in their dioceses and have welcomed Fiducia Supplicans as precisely authorizing just that.

Will these people be corrected by the Vatican? Or will they just be told to keep it a bit less liturgical?

If a document is that quickly and widely “misinterpreted,” then it is not unreasonable to ask whether that may have been the point. The alternative explanation is that it was incompetently written, and Cardinal Fernández is not incompetent.

If not incompetent then ... deliberate?

 

[IcyChain]

What a shock.

Well, we make progress, anyway.

Yes. And he is absolutely correct.

If two people are arguing over whether water is wet or dry, the easiest way to solve the debate is throw a bucket of said substance into the face of the one claiming it's dry, and then ask him if he's all wet.

People can argue about stuff and come up with all manner of convoluted perambulations to "prove" their stance, but that still doesn't make wet into dry. It's like this "transgender" balderdash: you can have altering surgery. You can take boatloads of hormones. You can dress as a woman or as a man. You can demand that people treat you as whatever you want to be. But that still doesn't make you what you claim you are. You are born with "xx" chromosomes, or with "xy" chromosomes, and nothing you do will ever alter that in any way, shape, form, manner, or conception, no matter how much you might want it to.

Well, in your view the document is the equivalent of "wet". To you it is clearly wrong but plenty of people look at the very same document and say "I do not see any statment in the document at all that is error". Fr. Mark Goring said that he thought that the document was excellently written when he first read it, and he is a rather conservative priest. I think I have seen him on LifeSite News a couple of times.

Personally, my basic disposition towards something that the pope has written or authorized is think that it does not contain error, that it is not contradictory to the teaching of the church. I seek to interpret it in a positive light and in continuity with what I understand to be orthodox teaching. I don't treat it with immediate suspicions, rejection, and seek to show why it is wrong. I think that is the wrong sort of disposition for a Catholic layperson to have towards the magisterium and the pope in particular, and I think there is plenty written in previous councils, by previous popes and by saints that support that this should be our basic disposition towards the pope.

Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 5:22 to abstain not only from evil, but from all appearance of evil. That means even if there's any way that something can be perceived as being wrong, you avoid it, whether it's wrong or not. To me, this blessing of homosexuals thing is sort of like eating food offered to pagan idols: maybe it's not technically wrong, but if it's going to cause you problems, or if it causes your weaker brother to stumble, don't do it.

Well, I tend to agree that FS is bad optics and to me it does not seem to be a great document from a prudential standpoint, for many of the reasons that have been discussed here. But again, I am willing to entertain the idea that the pope knows that he is doing and that his prudential decisions concerning this matter may be for the ultimate good of the church. I think the Holy Spirit guides the pope in his prudential decisions as well.

In particular, if you watch the Mark Goring videos, you can see how the document can be viewed as a correction of the German bishops, while not putting them in a position that may lead them to schism.

No need to get snarky, old boy. We're all friends here.

Yes. You are correct. That was snarky and unnecessary. I was wrong to write that.

I would also say that your "What a shock" comment was snarky and that Fide's calling my post a "dissertation" and then stating that he would not even read it was also snarky. So I think that others should apologize for those too, if we are being fair.

 

[IcyChain]

And, insofar as "is it right or wrong, A or B, black or white, wet or dry, allowable or forbidden", we get two different declarations from Francis, saying, more or less, the exact opposite of one another:

and then, a mere two years later, we get this:

Now, if he can't make up his mind, how does he expect us to???

You should seek to interpret the documents together such that they do not contradict each other. You interpret the second statement to mean that he intends a blessing on the homosexual union. Either that is correct, or your interpretation of the second statement is wrong.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I think you misunderstood me there.

On two separate threads you told me that my questioning of pope Francis was acting like a Protestant. And now you soften it to say that I do have a right to question the pope or another bishop. I think the difference may be that when cardinals Muller and Zen and Burke, and archbishop Chaput, and the whole African bishop's conference including African cardinals, and the whole Ukrainian bishop's conference, and a bevy of other bishops have the same line it becomes a little hard to maintain that we're ALL Protestants.

 

[Wolseley]

Well, in your view the document is the equivalent of "wet". To you it is clearly wrong but plenty of people look at the very same document and say "I do not see any statment in the document at all that is error". Fr. Mark Goring said that he thought that the document was excellently written when he first read it, and he is a rather conservative priest. I think I have seen him on LifeSite News a couple of times.

Personally, my basic disposition towards something that the pope has written or authorized is think that it does not contain error, that it is not contradictory to the teaching of the church. I seek to interpret it in a positive light and in continuity with what I understand to be orthodox teaching. I don't treat it with immediate suspicions, rejection, and seek to show why it is wrong. I think that is the wrong sort of disposition for a Catholic layperson to have towards the magisterium and the pope in particular, and I think there is plenty written in previous councils, by previous popes and by saints that support that this should be our basic disposition towards the pope.

Well, I tend to agree that FS is bad optics and to me it does not seem to be a great document from a prudential standpoint, for many of the reasons that have been discussed here. But again, I am willing to entertain the idea that the pope knows that he is doing and that his prudential decisions concerning this matter may be for the ultimate good of the church. I think the Holy Spirit guides the pope in his prudential decisions as well.

In particular, if you watch the Mark Goring videos, you can see how the document can be viewed as a correction of the German bishops, while not putting them in a position that may lead them to schism.

The Pope and the Black Hole | Dan Hitchens

Pope Francis is still the Vicar of Christ—even if he appears to have collapsed in on himself.

www.firstthings.com

Yes. You are correct. That was snarky and unnecessary. I was wrong to write that.

I would also say that your "What a shock" comment was snarky and that Fide's calling my post a "dissertation" and then stating that he would not even read it was also snarky. So I think that others should apologize for those too, if we are being fair.

You're correct. I was being snarky as well, and I apologize.