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

[IcyChain]

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.

It was never my view that merely questioning pope Francis was acting like a Protestant. Perhaps that was how your perceived what I wrote, but that was not my intention. Whether you choose to believe me with respect to that is up to you.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It was never my view that merely questioning pope Francis was acting like a Protestant. Perhaps that was how your perceived what I wrote, but that was not my intention. Whether you choose to believe me with respect to that is up to you.

I only had your words to guide me on that. If you say otherwise I will try to believe that.

 

[fide]

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."

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."

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.

And yeah, if you just want to shut the conversation down with a sound "NO" and end all discussion you can certainly become a priest and perhaps one day you will be elected pope and you will have the authority to do that. Personally, if the question had been put to me, I would likely have not issued something like FS. I would probably just say "Nope. Not at all. Not possible. Too bad" like most of the trads would like. To me, FS does not strike me as good optics or a prudent thing to do, even if we give the pope the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is not part of a grand conspiracy to slowly usher sodomy into the Church. But even though FS is something I would not issue myself, my general disposition is that the pope knows more than I do, and is a better position to make those decisions being the vicar of Christ, theologically formed from years of trainig, having the guidance of the Holy Spirit and so forth. I am not just going to assume that I am correct and the vicar of Christ is wrong "just because". The magisterium teaches the laity. The laity does not teach the magisterium. It is our job to try to understand the teaching and that is what we have been attempting to do in this discussion.

Christ is the Teacher, or nothing is taught. If the Light of Christ is not Present, all is darkness and futility. No matter how erudite and upscale one pretends. It's your time, for now. Do as you will.

 

[Lady Bug]

I've been reading this thread and I feel that Icy's contributions to the thread have helped me actually. I know ....unpopular opinion.

 

[zippy2006]

I think the criticism that Cardinal Mueller offered, and that was subsequently discussed by Zippy, has some substance to it.

To be honest, I have not read Muller's article in full, although I have read the document in full. So I'm not sure how close my ideas are to Muller's. They may or may not be close.

The "sex being a sin" hypothetical you raised is interesting. It raises in my mind the question of "what makes a couple?" Let's say you have two gay men that have been best friends for a few years. They hang out with each other every weekend. They are super-close, but do not engage in any sexual activity of any kind. They may even live together, but they are chaste. Are they a couple? If this same pair of men starts having sex, do they then become a couple?

Let's then look at the situation where you have a Catholic male and female who have been dating each other for a year or two. They are best friends. They hang out every weekend. They are exploring the possibility of marriage. But they are completely chaste as well. Both of us would call these two people a couple even though they are not having sex, right? So it can't be the case that sex is what makes two people "a couple".

So marriage is associated with sexual intimacy. In fact this is one of the core and unique elements of marriage. This does not mean that a non-sexual marriage is not a marriage, but I am confident claiming, for example, that 99.9% of married couples have had sex with each other. This is the rule, and exceptions do not disprove the rule. If we take up my hypothetical where sex is a sin, a priest would not be able to bless a marriage on the basis of there being 0.1% of marriages that do not involve sexual relations. Sex and marriage are so closely related that separating them is academic and misleading.

A Catholic couple that is dating is ordered towards marriage and ordered towards sexual intimacy and procreation, and this is why we call them a "couple." We would say they are a monogamous couple in fieri (in progress, or on the way towards fulfillment).

The question then is whether a same-sex couple can be a same-sex couple without there being a romantic or sexual aspect to their relationship (or their future civil union). Or in other words, the question is whether Merriam-Webster's definition of a couple is erroneous. Again, this was the same issue I raised in my first post, "The only conceivable way to read the document in a non-contradictory way would be to assume that it is directed at gay couples who are intending to live chastely, but I think this would be an enormous stretch."

It is a stretch because it flies in the face of societal expectations and societal norms, and beyond this, it is not clear whether such a thing is theologically or spiritually coherent (i.e. attempting to live in close intimacy with someone of the same sex, as a "couple," without engaging in sexual behavior). Such an idea does exist, but it is a tiny fringe in the Catholic world. If Fiducia Supplicans was directed at this tiny fringe, and yet did not mention or appeal to this fact, then the document would remain enormously misleading and confusing. I see no evidence that is was directed to this fringe movement.

So even in the case that "a same-sex couple" (in the sense of them as a "unit", "bond" or "relationship") is the object of the blessing, I do not think that we can view the sinful activity (the two men having sex) as constitutive element of what makes them a "couple" because we have couples that do not engage in sex. So then is it possible to bless the "couple" without blessing the sin that the couple engages in, because the sin itself is not what makes them a "couple"? I do not know. My intuition is that making the couple (in the sense of "the bond" or the "unit") the object of the blessing would be error, but it is difficult for me to pin down exactly why, when I look at it from this perspective. The question here is, what is the specific constitutive element of a male-male "couple" that would make blessing this couple tantamount to blessing sin?

The secondary question, which I may have raised earlier, is that if this has to do with chaste couples then it is a blessing for friends, and not for "couples." A blessing for chaste friendships would not be limited to two persons, but more importantly, a chaste couple is not in an irregular situation, and thus the grouping of the document would make no sense. The document groups couples in irregular situations with same-sex couples because it assumes that both are engaging in illicit sexual acts. The background and impetus of the document doesn't make sense if we don't assume that a "same-sex couple" is generally engaging in sexual acts.

Then I also wonder, if a Catholic unmarried male-female couple are having sex, would the priest be forbidden from giving them a blessing if they asked for one?

The document is meant to address this issue, and it is closely related to the same-sex issue.

Going back to the main issue of how "blessing a couple" should be understood, please correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are looking at the two people as forming a unit (the "couple") that is bigger than the individual parts, and you think that it is the unit that is being blessed. If that is right, I don't think it is unreasonable, especially if we were to look just at the term "blessing of a couple" outside of the overall context of the document. In substance, I think this essentially equates "blessing of the couple" to mean "blessing of the unit", "blessing of the relationship" or "blessing of the bond". But let me know if I have misunderstood you.

Yes, something like that.

Then it seems that from your perspective, if the "couple" (e.g. the unit, relationship or the bond) is the object of the blessing then the only way this blessing could be permissible is if the couple has agreed to be chaste (similar to the "brother and sister" arrangement for the divorced and remarried). This is one way we could interpret the document without falling into error, but I agree with you that this seems like a stretch. At least to me, the "brother and sister" relationship does not appear to be what the document contemplates.

Yes, I agree.

When I read the document I did not have the impression at all that "blessing of a couple" should be interpreted in that manner, however. I think a big part of that is because the document goes to pretty-good lengths to clarify that the object of a blessing cannot be sin and that there is no intention to give legitimacy to the validity of same-sex unions. Here the document states that "the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex"; "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"; "a blessing requires that what is blessed be conformed to God’s will" and "precisely to avoid any form of confusion or scandal, when the prayer of blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation, even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding".

Yes, exactly right.

With all of that background, when I read the term "blessing of couples" in the document, I immediatley thought that it meant "blessing of the two people forming the couple" or "blessing of the two people in the relationship." I thought this sentence in particular made it clear that the object of the blessing is the people in the relationship, not the union itself: "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."

I thought the part about the blessing descending from God down upon those who recognize themselves to be destitute to be clearly referring to the people themselves as the object of the blessing.

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).

For example, if the document had stated "blessing of brothers" and I approached a priest after Mass with my brother and said "Father, could you please bless me and my brother" - I don't have the intention for the priest to bless our status or bond of being "brothers" and I don't think the priest has that intention either. I look at it as the priest blessing the two of us at the same time, and we just so happen to be brothers.

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.

Similarly, let's say that there is a husband and a wife. Sitiuation 1 is that on the day that they get married they ask the priest to bless their marriage. Situation 2 is that on another day they approach a different priest after Mass together and ask for a blessing together as husband and wife. I would tend to think of situation 1 as "blessing the marriage" or "blessing the union" and I would tend to think of Situation 2 more along the lines of "blessing the couple". The situations are not equivalent in my mind. In Situation 1 it is the thing (the marriage / union / bond) that is being blessed. In Situation 2 it is the people that are the object of the blessing (they just so happen to be married).

Here is the blessing for a married couple outside of Mass (link). If you read the simple blessing, which is not a renewal of vows, you will find that language about their union, their commitment, and their common love permeates the blessing. It is not at all a blessing of two individual persons in their separateness. It is not that they "just so happen to be married."

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.

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.

 

[zippy2006]

In an interesting development, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has denied that Fiducia Supplicans applies to Ukrainian Catholics, and has more or less repudiated the "innovative" notion of blessing found in the document:

...According to the traditions of the Byzantine rite, the concept of “blessing” means approval, permission, or even a spiritual directive for a certain type of action, prayer or ascetic practice, including certain types of fasting and prayer. Obviously, the blessing of a priest always has an Evangelical and Catechetical dimension, and therefore can in no way contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the family as a faithful, indissoluble, and fruitful union of love between a man and a woman, which Our Lord Jesus Christ raised to the dignity of the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony. Pastoral prudence urges us to avoid ambiguous gestures, expressions and concepts that would distort or misrepresent God’s word and the teaching of the Church... (link)​

 

[IcyChain]

To be honest, I have not read Muller's article in full, although I have read the document in full. So I'm not sure how close my ideas are to Muller's. They may or may not be close.


So marriage is associated with sexual intimacy. In fact this is one of the core and unique elements of marriage. This does not mean that a non-sexual marriage is not a marriage, but I am confident claiming, for example, that 99.9% of married couples have had sex with each other. This is the rule, and exceptions do not disprove the rule. If we take up my hypothetical where sex is a sin, a priest would not be able to bless a marriage on the basis of there being 0.1% of marriages that do not involve sexual relations. Sex and marriage are so closely related that separating them is academic and misleading.

A Catholic couple that is dating is ordered towards marriage and ordered towards sexual intimacy and procreation, and this is why we call them a "couple." We would say they are a monogamous couple in fieri (in progress, or on the way towards fulfillment).

The question then is whether a same-sex couple can be a same-sex couple without there being a romantic or sexual aspect to their relationship (or their future civil union). Or in other words, the question is whether Merriam-Webster's definition of a couple is erroneous. Again, this was the same issue I raised in my first post, "The only conceivable way to read the document in a non-contradictory way would be to assume that it is directed at gay couples who are intending to live chastely, but I think this would be an enormous stretch."

It is a stretch because it flies in the face of societal expectations and societal norms, and beyond this, it is not clear whether such a thing is theologically or spiritually coherent (i.e. attempting to live in close intimacy with someone of the same sex, as a "couple," without engaging in sexual behavior). Such an idea does exist, but it is a tiny fringe in the Catholic world. If Fiducia Supplicans was directed at this tiny fringe, and yet did not mention or appeal to this fact, then the document would remain enormously misleading and confusing. I see no evidence that is was directed to this fringe movement.


The secondary question, which I may have raised earlier, is that if this has to do with chaste couples then it is a blessing for friends, and not for "couples." A blessing for chaste friendships would not be limited to two persons, but more importantly, a chaste couple is not in an irregular situation, and thus the grouping of the document would make no sense. The document groups couples in irregular situations with same-sex couples because it assumes that both are engaging in illicit sexual acts. The background and impetus of the document doesn't make sense if we don't assume that a "same-sex couple" is generally engaging in sexual acts.


The document is meant to address this issue, and it is closely related to the same-sex issue.


Yes, something like that.


Yes, I agree.


Yes, exactly right.


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.


Here is the blessing for a married couple outside of Mass (link). If you read the simple blessing, which is not a renewal of vows, you will find that language about their union, their commitment, and their common love permeates the blessing. It is not at all a blessing of two individual persons in their separateness. It is not that they "just so happen to be married."

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.

Thanks. I see your view on it. Whatever happens here, I am confident that the Church will move in the right direction. I liked the verse that Fr. Goring quoted from Acts 15 about this matter: "And after there had been much debate . . ."

 

[IcyChain]

I've been reading this thread and I feel that Icy's contributions to the thread have helped me actually. I know ....unpopular opinion.

Thanks. I'm not sure why it's such a crazy idea for a Catholic to entertain the idea that the vicar of Christ could have taught something that is correct. . .

 

[chevyontheriver]

Thanks. I'm not sure why it's such a crazy idea for a Catholic to entertain the idea that the vicar of Christ could have taught something that is correct. . .

It has long been expected by Catholics that the vicar of Christ WOULD teach things that are correct. I expected it almost all of my life, and based on track records it was sensible to expect. It is dismaying that a pope can no longer be trusted to teach things that are correct. Such is the mess (Hagan Lio!) that has been created in the last ten years. Lots of us had high hopes for the papacy of pope Francis. Then when he started with the awkward stuff we bent into pretzels trying to defend him. I sure did, until I couldn't bend any more. He does not get the benefit of the doubt from me any longer. Sure he says some decent things, and does some decent things. But what's he gonna say tomorrow? Who is he going to appoint tomorrow? Will he double down on blessing 'irregular unions' or what?

I know this may not sit well with you. But pope Francis has multiple cardinals and bishops and theologians crying foul over this new document. And the list grows. How did that happen? It's not just little old me and a couple (Ha!) of malcontents in this backwater forum. We're all focused on somehow blessing a couple being semantically different than blessing the union of that couple and how a private impromptu unscripted blessing without any fancy clothes is somehow different than wearing fancy clothes. It's goofy, er ... crazy, er ,,, broken. A retirement is in order. It pains me to say so, but it's time.

 

[chevyontheriver]

In an interesting development, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has denied that Fiducia Supplicans applies to Ukrainian Catholics, and has more or less repudiated the "innovative" notion of blessing found in the document:

...According to the traditions of the Byzantine rite, the concept of “blessing” means approval, permission, or even a spiritual directive for a certain type of action, prayer or ascetic practice, including certain types of fasting and prayer. Obviously, the blessing of a priest always has an Evangelical and Catechetical dimension, and therefore can in no way contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the family as a faithful, indissoluble, and fruitful union of love between a man and a woman, which Our Lord Jesus Christ raised to the dignity of the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony. Pastoral prudence urges us to avoid ambiguous gestures, expressions and concepts that would distort or misrepresent God’s word and the teaching of the Church... (link)​

I think their thing was that ‘the document’ was only for the Latin Rite, not even applying to them. Which brings up to me the idea that many of us DO consider that blessings, as sacramentals, are naturally liturgical, and thus the distinctions among blessings seems foreign. It’s like sacraments aren’t something that merely accidentally shares time and space with liturgy but that they are liturgical even if that liturgy is impromptu on the hood of a jeep in a battleground. Likewise sacramentals. The sprinkling of holy water at home is a form of liturgy whether a priest does it or head of household does it. The level of solemnity may differ but I do see both as liturgical. Now this isn’t a doctrinal conclusion by any means. But it does flow from a different kind of spirituality than one which has apparently just invented a whole new category of spur of the moment private blessings where irregular unions can be blessed as long as they are considered unions of a couple and have nothing to do with the thing that couple is coupled for.

So I think the nature of blessings, of sacramentals, of sacraments, and of liturgy is all bound together. Clergy and laity have their different roles, with laity having some distinct ways of participating, such as parental blessings.

 

[IcyChain]

It has long been expected by Catholics that the vicar of Christ WOULD teach things that are correct. I expected it almost all of my life, and based on track records it was sensible to expect. It is dismaying that a pope can no longer be trusted to teach things that are correct. Such is the mess (Hagan Lio!) that has been created in the last ten years. Lots of us had high hopes for the papacy of pope Francis. Then when he started with the awkward stuff we bent into pretzels trying to defend him. I sure did, until I couldn't bend any more. He does not get the benefit of the doubt from me any longer. Sure he says some decent things, and does some decent things. But what's he gonna say tomorrow? Who is he going to appoint tomorrow? Will he double down on blessing 'irregular unions' or what?

I can understand your viewpoint because you have concluded that Pope has consistently taught incorrect things. But from my viewpoint he has not. Where you see "Popesplaining" I see "Popeslandering" (a susbtantial portion of which is by Catholics, unfortunately).

For your consideration, I note this document from Ratzinger on behalf of the CDF:

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

​

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission.​

​

The document is a good read and has a substantial discussion about the topic of dissent, the manner in which criticisms of the magisterium can be made, and the proper dispostion of the laypersons (in particular theologians) towards the magisterium.

I know this may not sit well with you. But pope Francis has multiple cardinals and bishops and theologians crying foul over this new document. And the list grows. How did that happen? It's not just little old me and a couple (Ha!) of malcontents in this backwater forum. We're all focused on somehow blessing a couple being semantically different than blessing the union of that couple and how a private impromptu unscripted blessing without any fancy clothes is somehow different than wearing fancy clothes. It's goofy, er ... crazy, er ,,, broken. A retirement is in order. It pains me to say so, but it's time.

I have seen some links to people who are supposedly "Crying foul" posted in this forum. I have only had time to study one of them (Cardinal Mueller's comment). There are a thousands and thousands of bishops, priests, and theologians in the world. I am sure that some support the pope and that others have criticisms, concerns and questions about the document. The fact that a few links and news stories have been posted in an internet forum with a strong anti-Francis bent does not speak much to me in that regard. It's not like there has been a statistical worldwide poll of bishops on this topic.

I also strongly suspect that there have been times in which a strong minority or even a majority of the bishops in the world have been against the pope on a particular issue (the arian controversy and Humanae vitae immediatley come to mind). And the popes here corrected them. So the fact that a substantial number of bishops may disagre with the pope does not do much for me, either. This may not sit well with you, but our lord gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter.

Concerning the pope's resignation - if you would like the pope to retire and you feel strongly that this is for the good of the Church, I think you should write your bishop and make the request. Better yet write the pope himself and make your request, and provide your reasons why. You are not renting an apartment from the church so surely there is nothing that should deter you in that endeavor. God speed.

 

[IcyChain]

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

25. Even when collaboration takes place under the best conditions, the possibility cannot be excluded that tensions may arise between the theologian and the Magisterium. The meaning attributed to such tensions and the spirit with which they are faced are not matters of indifference. If tensions do not spring from hostile and contrary feelings, they can become a dynamic factor, a stimulus to both the Magisterium and theologians to fulfill their respective roles while practicing dialogue.

26. In the dialogue, a two-fold rule should prevail. When there is a question of the communion of faith, the principle of the "unity of truth" (unitas veritatis) applies. When it is a question of differences which do not jeopardize this communion, the "unity of charity" (unitas caritatis) should be safeguarded.

27. Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them.

28. The preceding considerations have a particular application to the case of the theologian who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching.

Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.

29. In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.

30. If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.

In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.

31. It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium's teaching without hesitation, the theologian's difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.

For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I can understand your viewpoint because you have concluded that Pope has consistently taught incorrect things. But from my viewpoint he has not. Where you see "Popesplaining" I see "Popeslandering" (a susbtantial portion of which is by Catholics, unfortunately).

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. This pope isn’t consistently wrong in everything. But his magisterium differs from the historical Magisterium of the Church. Something we didn’t see before. It had been one Magisterium. Akin to the issue of magisterium is that personnel is policy. This pope has appointed and promoted people who view past Magisterial teaching on sexuality as wrong, and they are out to fix the error. Cardinal Hollerich is a prime example, put in a key synodality role. James Martin brought into the synod to represent an important constituency, those that want their blessings. Something is odd here. We had a consistent teaching through cardinal Ratzinger’s statement on homosexuality in the 1980’s through the document signed off on by this very pope in 2021. Now we have something else. We have a pope blowing a very inconsistent trumpet. And now he has created for himself some real opposition. I know Catholics are told to obey the pope in everything. In conscience I have to put the consistent Magisterium of the Church ahead of what this pope says and who he appoints.

 

[IcyChain]

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. This pope isn’t consistently wrong in everything. But his magisterium differs from the historical Magisterium of the Church. Something we didn’t see before. It had been one Magisterium. Akin to the issue of magisterium is that personnel is policy. This pope has appointed and promoted people who view past Magisterial teaching on sexuality as wrong, and they are out to fix the error. Cardinal Hollerich is a prime example, put in a key synodality role. James Martin brought into the synod to represent an important constituency, those that want their blessings. Something is odd here. We had a consistent teaching through cardinal Ratzinger’s statement on homosexuality in the 1980’s through the document signed off on by this very pope in 2021. Now we have something else. We have a pope blowing a very inconsistent trumpet. And now he has created for himself some real opposition. I know Catholics are told to obey the pope in everything. In conscience I have to put the consistent Magisterium of the Church ahead of what this pope says and who he appoints.

I do not see an inconsistency between the two documents but I understand that you do. After Vatican 2 many people have complained that it teaches inconsistently and contradicts the previous theology of the Church. Either that is the case, or the various rad-trads who espouse that view are incorrect in their analysis.

There are plenty of rad-trads who are equally if not more convinced about the validity of thier view concerning the supposed errors of Vatican 2 as you are of the supposed errors of the pope. If you are justified in rejecting what the pope has taught, are the rad-trads then justified in rejecting Vatican 2?

But I understand that ultimately nobody can do anything that their conscience would let not them allow. If the pope came out and said "free and rampant sodomy is now the teaching of the church" I would be there protesting with you, but I do not believe such a thing is possible.

We have to follow our conscience but it has to be a well-informed conscience. I suspect that this is where many of Francis's detractors are in error. For example, many seem to have criticized and rejected the pope's teaching on blessings before they even read the document. A person cannot exactly cliam to have a well informed conscience because he read something on Twitter.

 

[zippy2006]

I think their thing was that ‘the document’ was only for the Latin Rite, not even applying to them.

Well, I would say the only reason they said that is because the document is problematic. They never say this about unproblematic documents. They went out of their way on this one for a reason.

So I think the nature of blessings, of sacramentals, of sacraments, and of liturgy is all bound together.

Yes, I agree. That is another of the many problems with the document.

The unfortunate thing is that these new documents are setting a very low bar for magisterial theology. Magisterial theology seems to be succumbing to the same lack of rigor that now characterizes popular and academic theology.

 

[zippy2006]

I finally got around to reading Müller's article in full. I very much enjoyed this paragraph, which sums up a problem so common in our own day:

This leads to a second observation: it is hazardous to invent new terms that go against the traditional usage of language. Such procedure can give rise to arbitrary exercises of power. In the case at hand, the fact is that a blessing has an objective reality of its own and thus cannot be redefined at will to fit a subjective intention that is contrary to the nature of a blessing. Here Humpty Dumpty's famous line from Alice in Wonderland comes to mind: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” Alice replies, “The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.” And Humpty Dumpty says: “The question is which is to be master; that's all.”​

It is the so-called "intellectuals" who are able to twist the meaning of words in this way, while the simple and honest are left scratching their heads.


Edward Feser gives a useful and concise overview of the serious problems the document is causing (link):

What has generated controversy are the words I have put in bold italics above. Indeed, “controversy” is much too mild a word. At the time I write this, the bishops of Poland, Ukraine, Nigeria, Malawi and Zambia have indicated that they will not implement the Declaration. Cardinal Ambongo, Archbishop of Kinshasa, has called for a united African response to the problematic new policy. The Declaration has been criticized by Cardinal Müller, Archbishop Chaput, Archbishop Peta and Bishop Schneider, and the British Confraternity of Catholic Clergy. Among priests and theologians, criticisms have been raised by Fr. Thomas Weinandy, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Prof. Larry Chapp, and others.​

​

The problems with Fiducia Supplicans can be summed up in three words: incoherence, abuse, and implicature. Let’s consider each in turn.​

 

[Wolseley]

What has generated controversy are the words I have put in bold italics above. Indeed, “controversy” is much too mild a word. At the time I write this, the bishops of Poland, Ukraine, Nigeria, Malawi and Zambia have indicated that they will not implement the Declaration. Cardinal Ambongo, Archbishop of Kinshasa, has called for a united African response to the problematic new policy. The Declaration has been criticized by Cardinal Müller, Archbishop Chaput, Archbishop Peta and Bishop Schneider, and the British Confraternity of Catholic Clergy. Among priests and theologians, criticisms have been raised by Fr. Thomas Weinandy, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Prof. Larry Chapp, and others.

​

Must be all those people are Protestants who haven't read the entire document, eh?

 

[Wolseley]

Said ever so much better than I could have (much thanks to zippy2006 for this one).

The scandal of <i>Fiducia Supplicans</i>

By now many readers of this blog will likely have heard about Fiducia Supplicans and the worldwide controversy it has generated, which may ...

edwardfeser.blogspot.com

I really do think that Francis stepped in it clear up to his hip on this one.....he needs to issue a clarification on this, in basic, clear, definitive language, as soon as possible.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I do not see an inconsistency between the two documents but I understand that you do. After Vatican 2 many people have complained that it teaches inconsistently and contradicts the previous theology of the Church. Either that is the case, or the various rad-trads who espouse that view are incorrect in their analysis.

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 are equally if not more convinced about the validity of thier view concerning the supposed errors of Vatican 2 as you are of the supposed errors of the pope. If you are justified in rejecting what the pope has taught, are the rad-trads then justified in rejecting Vatican 2?

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

But I understand that ultimately nobody can do anything that their conscience would let not them allow.

Of course. And the formation of that conscience is very important.

If the pope came out and said "free and rampant sodomy is now the teaching of the church" I would be there protesting with you, but I do not believe such a thing is possible.

Would you really? 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?

We have to follow our conscience but it has to be a well-informed conscience. I suspect that this is where many of Francis's detractors are in error. For example, many seem to have criticized and rejected the pope's teaching on blessings before they even read the document. A person cannot exactly cliam to have a well informed conscience because he read something on Twitter.

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

 

[chevyontheriver]

I really do think that Francis stepped in it clear up to his hip on this one.....he needs to issue a clarification on this, in basic, clear, definitive language, as soon as possible.

Even us 'anti-Francis' people would be happy if he just clarified his confused language and reconciled with the Magisterium. How's that for being anti-Francis Francis-hating rad-trads? Or should I use the word 'indietrists' aka 'backwardists'?