Pope Francis Allows Clergy to Bless Same-Sex Couples

[Buzzard3]

Every post you make is anti-Pope Francis

Every post?

as if you have greater knowledge of God's will
than he does

Only a deluded or very confused mind would suppose that it's God's will to bless relationships that the Church teaches are "objectively disordered" (CCC #2358).

My mind is affliced by many faults, but I thank God that it's not afflicted by delusion or confusion of that nature.

You've been arguing your position since you came in here. In other words
it's an attitude of self-righteousness.

So when St. Paul objected to St. Peter's error in Galatians 2, St. Paul had "an attitude of self-righteousness"?

You've been arguing your position since you came in here. In other words
it's an attitude of self-righteousness.

Does your judgement of my attitude as self-righteous mean your own attitude is self-righteous?

 

[Buzzard3]

If you were a priest, and they asked you for a blessing, you would just refuse and tell them to go to confession first?

I wouldn't bless any same-sex couple, even after confession.

Jesus would not do this

Jesus would not support the demonic LGBTQ movement by blessing a same-sex couple.

 

[chevyontheriver]

We don't know what their sins are and neither does the priest whom they approach for a blessing.

If you were a priest, and they asked you for a blessing, you would just refuse and tell them to go to confession first?

Gee, Jesus would not do this, but hey, why follow Jesus, just follow a radical-catholic fundamentalist rhetoric.

Pope Francis was a radical-catholic fundamentalist as of 2021 according to documented rhetoric out of the DDF with his signature on it.

 

[Buzzard3]

Jesus would not do this

Neither would Jesus be so demented as to bless a relationship that his Church teaches is "objectively disordered" (CCC #2358).

 

[The Liturgist]

I wouldn't bless any same-sex couple, even after confession.

Jesus would not support the demonic LGBTQ movement by blessing a same-sex couple.

As an actual presbyter, albeit not a Catholic one, there is no way I could bless a sodomitic marriage. I believe that suggesting that homosexual marriages can be sacramentally performed is itself grounds for excommunication and anathema as it is in such extreme opposition to the Gospel, but a synod of Orthodox bishops should from a procedural perspective normally be used to pronounce anathemas and in this case the risk of persecution from left wing regimes such as the Canadian government is such that if the Orthodox do that, the synod should be secret and undocumented.

This is partially because the Eastern and especially the Oriental Orthodox Church include several small ethnoreligious groups, like the Eastern Catholic Churches (and I would lament that Fiducia Supplicans does nothing but endanger the likes of Chaldean Catholics, Syriac Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Melkite Catholics and Maronites, since now Islamists can use this as an argument against them), but conversely if an Eastern church very openly opposes sodomy, the ability of its refugees to emigrate to the West becomes compromised, it can lose its financial associations, and the West is more likely to back regimes hostile to it, which was the case during the Syrian civil war.

 

[Wolseley]

Some priests in Austria are being told they MUST provide such blessings. Good priests will not. Or maybe they could say "God bless you and keep you far away from each others sexual parts".

Reminds me of that line from Fiddler on the Roof:

"Rabbi, is there a proper blessing for the Czar?"

"A blessing for the Czar? Of course! (chants) May God bless and keep the Czar.......far away from us!"

 

[Buzzard3]

It's his last days if not the last days for all of us.

Fiducia Supplicans raises what I think is an important theological question: Would a priest actually be committing a sin by blessing a same-sex couple?

 

[The Liturgist]

Fiducia Supplicans raises what I think is an important theological question: Would a priest actually be committing a sin by blessing a same-sex couple?

If the blessing is of the sodomitic relationship as opposed to something like Holy Unction for recovery from an illness or hearing a confession of sodomy and pronouncing absolution, I think it would be sinful and it also potentially runs into Galatians 1:8-9 territory.

 

[Euthymios]

It's important for people to understand that God cannot bless sin or anything contrary to Scripture, because He would be morally defective, and consequently finite (not the greatest conceivable being). The New Testament condemns homosexual activity. In fact, St. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit placed homosexuals on his list of the damned. (see 1Cor. 6:9-10). God cannot contradict himself without being morally defective. The Old Testament prohibition of homosexuality was not rescinded in the New Testament, but repeated. This is also the historic view of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[The Liturgist]

It's important for people to understand that God cannot bless sin or anything contrary to Scripture, because He would be morally defective, and consequently finite (not the greatest conceivable being). The New Testament condemns homosexual activity. In fact, St. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit placed homosexuals on his list of the damned. (see 1Cor. 6:9-10). God cannot contradict himself without being morally defective. The Old Testament prohibition of homosexuality was not rescinded in the New Testament, but repeated. This is also the historic view of the Roman Catholic Church.

Indeed so, your post is exceedingly correct. This is why I have argued repeatedly against the claims of some that Fiducia Supplicans is somehow merciful, because the merciful thing to do is always to act in a manner intended to bring about repentance.

 

[Buzzard3]

It's important for people to understand that God cannot bless sin or anything contrary to Scripture, because He would be morally defective, and consequently finite (not the greatest conceivable being). The New Testament condemns homosexual activity. In fact, St. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit placed homosexuals on his list of the damned. (see 1Cor. 6:9-10). God cannot contradict himself without being morally defective. The Old Testament prohibition of homosexuality was not rescinded in the New Testament, but repeated. This is also the historic view of the Roman Catholic Church.

Not only that, it could actually be sinful for a priest to bless a same-sex couple ... which is, of course, blessing a same-sex relationship. So Francis has not only officially approved same-sex relationships, it's possibly he's directed priests to sin, all in the name of the Church.

 

[Buzzard3]

Indeed so, your post is exceedingly correct. This is why I have argued repeatedly against the claims of some that Fiducia Supplicans is somehow merciful, because the merciful thing to do is always to act in a manner intended to bring about repentance.

Fiducia Supplicans is sin and the approval of sin masquerading as compassion (ostensibly, at least).

 

[The Liturgist]

Fiducia Supplicans is sin and the approval of sin masquerading as compassion (ostensibly, at least).

Indeed this is my view, and every traditional Catholic known to me, such as Peter Kwasniewsly, Fr. Zuhlsdorf and my friends here on CF such as @chevyontheriver has expressed dismay that the DDF issued this document.

I myself am perplexed by it since just months earlier Pope Francis had expressed opposition to any kind of capitulation in this direction. But then literally almost on the heels of the Church of England making a strikingly similar capitulation, this happened.

 

[The Liturgist]

Pope Francis was a radical-catholic fundamentalist as of 2021 according to documented rhetoric out of the DDF with his signature on it.

I think we should consider, in the interests of charity, the possibility that Pope Francis is not acting entirely under his own volition, but is being manipulated, given how this contradicts his previous statements.

There is an elderly Eastern Orthodox Patriarch who seems to me to have become a mouthpiece for lower ranking and more radical bishops in his hierarchy and this has caused massive controversy and created a state of near-schism, where I think as of now it is only the Patriarchs of Romania, Jerusalem and perhaps possibly Bulgaria, and His Beatitude the Metropolitan or Poland, who are holding the Communion together (since one side in the conflict does not recognize the Orthodox Church in America as autocephalous even though the OCA would likely ally itself with them), although the controversy in question is not due to an issue of moral theology but rather a toxic mix of ecclesiology and geopolitics.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I think we should consider, in the interests of charity, the possibility that Pope Francis is not acting entirely under his own volition, but is being manipulated, given how this contradicts his previous statements.

It is more complicated than that. The 2021 statement of the DDF that he signed, it turns out he was not happy with and he fired the two authors of that statement shortly after it came out, which said there was to be no blessing of unblessable relationships. That would have been the understood tradition but somehow he signed it by accident or something. Cardinal Fernandez invented a clever way of getting around saying these blessings were impossible and pope Francis agreed. I think pope Francis all along wanted something like FS, with or without the controversy. but it does stick him in the conundrum of having signed one thing in 2021 and now something that undoes it while pretending not to in 2023. His volition is a bit up in the air but I think this is closer than two years ago. As to who is advising him, he has always kept a very small circle so it's mostly him and a few like Fernandez. That's a flaw.

 

[The Liturgist]

It is more complicated than that. The 2021 statement of the DDF that he signed, it turns out he was not happy with and he fired the two authors of that statement shortly after it came out, which said there was to be no blessing of unblessable relationships. That would have been the understood tradition but somehow he signed it by accident or something. Cardinal Fernandez invented a clever way of getting around saying these blessings were impossible and pope Francis agreed. I think pope Francis all along wanted something like FS, with or without the controversy. but it does stick him in the conundrum of having signed one thing in 2021 and now something that undoes it while pretending not to in 2023. His volition is a bit up in the air but I think this is closer than two years ago. As to who is advising him, he has always kept a very small circle so it's mostly him and a few like Fernandez. That's a flaw.

Well that’s depressing but I suppose it provides all the more reason to back the efforts being led by the likes of Dr. Peter Kwasniewsky to challenge this act canonically and perhaps, if I interpreted what he wrote correctly, an effort to canonically depose Pope Francis.

 

[The Liturgist]

It is more complicated than that. The 2021 statement of the DDF that he signed, it turns out he was not happy with and he fired the two authors of that statement shortly after it came out, which said there was to be no blessing of unblessable relationships. That would have been the understood tradition but somehow he signed it by accident or something. Cardinal Fernandez invented a clever way of getting around saying these blessings were impossible and pope Francis agreed. I think pope Francis all along wanted something like FS, with or without the controversy. but it does stick him in the conundrum of having signed one thing in 2021 and now something that undoes it while pretending not to in 2023. His volition is a bit up in the air but I think this is closer than two years ago. As to who is advising him, he has always kept a very small circle so it's mostly him and a few like Fernandez. That's a flaw.

Oh dear did you see this? You are clearly in the right:

Pope Francis Responds to Resistance to Fiducia Supplicans: ‘The Lord Blesses Everyone’

Pope Francis responded publicly to questions about the Vatican’s declaration on blessings for same-sex couples for the first time in a television interview on Sunday night. He also responded to questions about the declaration during a closed-door meeting with 800 priests from the Diocese of Rome...

www.christianforums.com

 

[The Barbarian]

It seems to me like someone in leadership actually read the book of James. We condemn ourselves when we show favoritism or partiality in judging others. Sin is sin, homosexuality is not somehow worse than the sins of other church members. We are all called to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Because we all commit sin.

Apparently, Francis is not part of the "my sin is nicer than your sin" congregation. Good on him. The Catholic Church is for sinners who are trying to do better. If you are without sin, the Catholic Church is not for you.

 

[ralliann]

Apparently, Francis is not part of the "my sin is nicer than your sin" congregation. Good on him. The Catholic Church is for sinners who are trying to do better. If you are without sin, the Catholic Church is not for you.

Maybe it is their sin is nicer than your sin

 

[The Barbarian]

Maybe it is their sin is nicer than your sin

Maybe so. But I'll let God decide. So should they.