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

[mourningdove~]

It's been approved of and happening for a few months in Belgium and in Germany. James Martin, a stickler for following the rules, was just waiting for the Vatican to provide the rules he could stay within. Somebody show me if you can how James Martin violated any single part of the new Vatican rules.

Well ... it won't be me, showing you anything.
I'm sure you've done your homework. I trust what you are saying to be correct.
That does not change my belief, however, that what is happening is wrong, and a mockery.

I am sorry if it offends you, that I believe this behavior is offensive to God, even though the Vatican approves of it.
I'm not here to offend you. Please know that. It's just that what the Vatican decides or rules? It is no longer of any concern to me.

... and that being said, I know to now 'bow out' of these discussions.

God bless.

 

[Markie Boy]

I am in the same place. The Vatican is opposed to God.

One one hand, it's no longer my issue personally. But I have family still tied to it, so it is somewhat. So I question, how can anyone not say the Vatican is opposed to God any longer?

 

[narnia59]

It's been approved of and happening for a few months in Belgium and in Germany. James Martin, a stickler for following the rules, was just waiting for the Vatican to provide the rules he could stay within. Somebody show me if you can how James Martin violated any single part of the new Vatican rules.

He violated the rules if the couple he was blessing did not recognize themselves to be destitute, in need of God's help and instead were claiming a legitimaztion of their own status.

None of us can know the hearts of those two men, so we can't say for sure.

If they approached Martin and asked for a blessing with that intent, then he didn't violate any rules. They would have been seeking God's help that their relationship be healed. Which requires a recognition that it is not healthy and whole.

If they approached with an attitude that this blessing is given by God because our status is legitimate, then he did violate the rules. From the document:

"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."

And while we indeed can't know their hearts, based upon Martin's past actions and statements, my thought is he was indeed in violation of the new Vatican rules. But his superiors quite clearly do not care.

While I do not agree with everthing IcyChain has said in this thread, I do agree with one thing very strongly. If people want to find a loophole they can do it with anything. Scripture, a sermon, the writings of the Fathers, Church councils, papal encyclicals etc. It's the stuff that Protestatism is made of. Martin excels at it.

And my concern is that those who have a desire to uphold Church teaching and make it clearly known are actually undermining that goal when they take the secular media stance that the Pope has drifted from Church teaching here when after reading the document I can't make that claim at all.

Can you appoint to anything in the document when taken in context of the whole that does contradict Church teaching? I ask that in all seriousness.

 

[Michie]

COMMENTARY: The pastoral concessions the Vatican’s latest document gives for the blessing of people in same-sex relationships and other irregular marriages is imprudent and does not reflect reality ‘on the ground.’

Continued below.

‘Fiducia Supplicans’: A Pastor’s View

COMMENTARY: The pastoral concessions the Vatican’s latest document gives for the blessing of people in same-sex relationships and other irregular marriages is imprudent and does not reflect reality ‘on the ground.’

www.ncregister.com

 

[Michie]

Numerous bishops around the world have accepted the declaration from the Vatican but have cautioned against misrepresenting the guidelines in a way that would suggest that the Church condones homosexual behavior.

Bishops Around the World Are Divided Over Vatican’s Same-Sex Blessing Declaration

Numerous bishops around the world have accepted the declaration from the Vatican but have cautioned against misrepresenting the guidelines in a way that would suggest that the Church condones homosexual behavior.

www.ncregister.com

 

[LizaMarie]

Question: would a divorce and remarried couple be able to receive a blessing like this? Just asking for a friend

 

[Erose]

That's fair. I really do not find him confusing. Every time one of these stories comes out I think to myself "that sounds suspicious" and then go and read what the pope actually said or wrote, and don't see anything about it that gives me pause. I actually think Francis is quite orthodox, even though his communication style is different.

Has there been confusion? Certainly. But people can take anything and sow confusion from it. People have taken the Bible itself and twisted it to justify slavery, racism, and other bad things. If people do that with the word of God there is nothing to prevent them from doing the same with the words of the pope, if they desire. So to me, the existence of confusion itself is not a sign that the pope has taught something wrong. A lot of folks focus on the hysteria but cannot actually point to a specific statement that the pope said that is incorrect.

If you were able to walk away from reading about irregular relationships in AMORIS LÆTITIA not confused about what he was trying to say there, then you have my respect. I walked away from reading that section, thinking well I don't think anything changed, or did it? It is easy IMO to get two opposite understandings of that section in that document.

 

[Erose]

Question: would a divorce and remarried couple be able to receive a blessing like this? Just asking for a friend

Yes, but it requires that they recognize their irregular relationship and a desire to live a life of continence, if they remain together, to follow the Lord.

 

[Wolseley]

I was too. They played the Beatles 'Here Comes the Sun' and said 'Sun' was really 'Son'.

I remember hearing a "version" of Iron Butterfly's "In-a-Godda-Da-Vida" played once, with alternative lyrics, which consisted basically of, "Jesus, Jesus, whoa-whoa-whoa-whoa; Jesus, Jesus, yeah-yeah-yeah-yeah; Jesus, Jesus, hah-hah-hah-hah; Jesus, Jesus, whoa, yeah."

It had the whole schmeer, the drums, guitars, heavy back beat. It wasn't much on content, but I think the music was supposed to be the main slant, not Jesus.

And, of course, we were also "treated" to innumerable renditions of that funky version of the Lord's Prayer sung by that Australian nun. Absolutely wretched.

 

[Erose]

It's been approved of and happening for a few months in Belgium and in Germany. James Martin, a stickler for following the rules, was just waiting for the Vatican to provide the rules he could stay within. Somebody show me if you can how James Martin violated any single part of the new Vatican rules.

The funny thing is he posted what language he used to bless these two men, and quite frankly if that was the blessing, he really gave he could have given that one before Tuesday. So, I really don't believe he gave that one, but like you said, he pushes the boundaries, but he stays within at least publicly.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737577737764700624

 

[Wolseley]

If you were able to walk away from reading about irregular relationships in AMORIS LÆTITIA not confused about what he was trying to say there, then you have my respect. I walked away from reading that section, thinking well I don't think anything changed, or did it? It is easy IMO to get two opposite understandings of that section in that document.

That's exactly how the Spirit of Vatican II®™ replaced the actual documents of Vatican II in the United States after the Council. The liberal faction in the Church, both clerical and lay, instituted no end of absolute paraliturgical hogwash, and gave it a veneer of authority by claiming it was "in the Spirit" of the Council, when in fact the Council had said no such thing, or even close to it.

It wasn't until well into St. John Paul II's reign that most of the outlandish abuses were cleaned up and done away with, and American churches started to resemble Catholic parishes again, instead of a bunch of groovy hippies playing church.

(We still, regretfully, have the vestiges of that time lingering on with the awful music put forth in the 1970s by Hagen-Haas-Schuette-and-Toolin. )

I predict that the same thing will happen with this ruling. It doesn't matter what the ruling actually says; all that matters is that they can use it as a vehicle to advance their own agenda, just as James Martin is doing right now.

 

[Wolseley]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737577737764700624

Bingo. Just exactly as I said: it'll be "in the Spirit of" the New Vatican Declaration on Blessings®™, whether that's what the declaration said or not. Watch and see.

It's like, far out, man---totally copic! Can you dig the groovy colors?

 

[chevyontheriver]

He violated the rules if the couple he was blessing did not recognize themselves to be destitute, in need of God's help and instead were claiming a legitimaztion of their own status.

None of us can know the hearts of those two men, so we can't say for sure.

If they approached Martin and asked for a blessing with that intent, then he didn't violate any rules. They would have been seeking God's help that their relationship be healed. Which requires a recognition that it is not healthy and whole.

If they approached with an attitude that this blessing is given by God because our status is legitimate, then he did violate the rules. From the document:

"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."

And while we indeed can't know their hearts, based upon Martin's past actions and statements, my thought is he was indeed in violation of the new Vatican rules. But his superiors quite clearly do not care.

While I do not agree with everthing IcyChain has said in this thread, I do agree with one thing very strongly. If people want to find a loophole they can do it with anything. Scripture, a sermon, the writings of the Fathers, Church councils, papal encyclicals etc. It's the stuff that Protestatism is made of. Martin excels at it.

And my concern is that those who have a desire to uphold Church teaching and make it clearly known are actually undermining that goal when they take the secular media stance that the Pope has drifted from Church teaching here when after reading the document I can't make that claim at all.

Can you appoint to anything in the document when taken in context of the whole that does contradict Church teaching? I ask that in all seriousness.

So you claim that just maybe James Martin violated the new rule? Who will bring him up on canonical charges? He is presumed not to have violated a thing until those charges are made, then proven. To you it all seems to hinge upon the subjective opinion of the recipient 'spouses' and that seems like it will go nowhere in an environment where 'love wins'. My point is that what he did was carefully crafted so he cannot be charged or convicted in a court of canon law. James Martin gets away with it, will do it again and again, and others are going to do the same in the upcoming hours and days and months. Hopefully not years, as I am hoping sanity will re-emerge at the Vatican some day.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Bingo. Just exactly as I said: it'll be "in the Spirit of" the New Vatican Declaration on Blessings®™, whether that's what the declaration said or not. Watch and see.

It's like, far out, man---totally copic! Can you dig the groovy colors?

View attachment 340643

And yet, as you noted, some of the texts of Vatican II could be read this way or that way. The 'spirit' of Vatican II was in part a concerted method of reading the texts 'that way' and never 'this way'. True, some of the texts were simply ignored, as was most of the document on the liturgy. This 'spirit' of Vatican II was so bad that pope John Paul II had to convene a synod to straighten out the interpretation of Vatican II. For a while he fixed it, and the 'spirit' of the hermeneutic of discontinuity was replaced with the rightful hermeneutic of continuity.

James Martin lives within a particular reading of the text. He doesn't go outside of the text. We read the same texts he reads but read them trying to figure out a hermeneutic of continuity that I'm not sure is actually there in this case. I suspect James Martin was a consultor on the text of this new document, so I suspect he knows exactly how to use it. And he's running with it. Those who follow him may be less careful to stick to the words.

 

[Michie]

So you claim that just maybe James Martin violated the new rule? Who will bring him up on canonical charges? He is presumed not to have violated a thing until those charges are made, then proven. To you it all seems to hinge upon the subjective opinion of the recipient 'spouses' and that seems like it will go nowhere in an environment where 'love wins'. My point is that what he did was carefully crafted so he cannot be charged or convicted in a court of canon law. James Martin gets away with it, will do it again and again, and others are going to do the same in the upcoming hours and days and months. Hopefully not years, as I am hoping sanity will re-emerge at the Vatican some day.

Martin has been brinking and undermining for years. The pope still seems to favor him.

 

[IcyChain]

If you were able to walk away from reading about irregular relationships in AMORIS LÆTITIA not confused about what he was trying to say there, then you have my respect. I walked away from reading that section, thinking well I don't think anything changed, or did it? It is easy IMO to get two opposite understandings of that section in that document.

Well it's not like I just picked up the document read it in 5 minutes and was like "aha perfectly clear". I looked at some commentary by others who have a better theological knowledge than myself for guidance, keeping in mind that we are to give documents a favorable interpretation where possible.

It's the same with many of the big papal encylicals I think. Nobody is wading easily through that middle section of Veritatas Splendor. But it can be understood with diligence and help.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That does not change my belief, however, that what is happening is wrong, and a mockery.

Oh, I fully agree. I'm just saying James Martin most likely is not violating the new rule when he does something that is a mockery of marriage and even an abomination.

I am sorry if it offends you,

Doesn't offend me at all.

that I believe this behavior is offensive to God, even though the Vatican approves of it.

I fully agree. God is, IMHO, offended and this is scandal and abomination.

I'm not here to offend you. Please know that. It's just that what the Vatican decides or rules? It is no longer of any concern to me.

What did Jesus say? 'Do what they say but do not do what they do' with regard to what the temple authorities commanded. We can and should refrain from sin even if they command it, but this is a matter for bishops and cardinals to fix. Our part is to stay clear of it, to make our voices heard as needed, and to stay faithful. And to pray that God's kingly rule continue on.

My point was that James Martin is a hyper-careful interpreter of rules and lines. He colors just barely within the lines at all times. If he's coloring this way it's because he knows the new text allows it. If anyone disagrees, let them start a canonical case against James Martin and see how far that gets. I think what he did was scandalous and calls out to heaven. We'll see where it all goes. But I don't see any earthly power is going to bring him up on a canon law charge, not based on the pope's new text.

 

[Michie]

Same-Sex Blessings: Sinners Can Be Blessed But Not Their Sin, Spanish bishop Says

The prelate shared his views on spcial media, shortly after the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith released its Dec. 18 declaration.

www.ncregister.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

Martin has been brinking and undermining for years.

Yes, exactly. Carving away, preparing, sapping, very carefully. Sickeningly so.

The pope still seems to favor him.

Pope Francis apparently interrupted a very important meeting a few weeks ago to take a call from James Martin. For the third time now I'll say it. I suspect James Martin consulted on the pope's new document. I have zero proof. Maybe it will come out some day. The hermeneutic of discontinuity is in full force.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Same-Sex Blessings: Sinners Can Be Blessed But Not Their Sin, Spanish bishop Says

The prelate shared his views on spcial media, shortly after the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith released its Dec. 18 declaration.

www.ncregister.com

The text published by Cardinal Ladaria clearly states that “the Church does not have, nor can it have, the power to bless unions of persons of the same sex.”

To what degree is that still effective now?