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

[Michie]

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 on Saturday morning, saying: ‘People are blessed, not sin.’

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.

In an appearance on an Italian talk show on Jan. 14, the 87-year-old Pope was asked if he “felt alone” after the publication of Fiducia Supplicanswas met with some resistance.


“Sometimes decisions are not accepted,” Pope Francis replied. “But in most cases, when you don’t accept a decision, it’s because you don’t understand.”

The Pope underlined that “the Lord blesses everyone” and that a blessing is an invitation to enter into a conversation “to see what the road is that the Lord proposes to them.”


“The Lord blesses everyone who is capable of being baptized, that is, every person,” Francis repeated.

“But we are to take them by the hand and help them go down that road, not condemn them from the beginning,” he added. “And this is the pastoral work of the Church. This is very important work for confessors.”

Continued below.

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.ncregister.com

 

[Buzzard3]

He also responded to questions about the declaration during a closed-door meeting with 800 priests from the Diocese of Rome on Saturday morning, saying: ‘People are blessed, not sin.’

Deceitful sophistry. The people being blessed includes same-sex couples, which means same-sex relationships are being blessed.

Does this Pope really think we're that stupid?

The Pope underlined that “the Lord blesses everyone”.

More deceitful sophistry. The Lord blesses everyone, but only a degenerate fool would imagine that the Lord would bless same-sex relationships, as per the Fiducia Supplicans Declaration.

 

[Buzzard3]

A same sex-relationship itself is not necessarily sinful. I have many friends of the same gender. These friendships are a same-sex relationship but they do not entail sin.

Oh, so that's what Fiducia Supplicans means by "couples of the same-sex"? It got nothing to do with homosexuality?
If so, you and your same-sex friend should approach a priest as a couple for a blessing. LOL.

 

[dzheremi]

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 on Saturday morning, saying: ‘People are blessed, not sin.’

This is kind of a weird distinction, isn't it? It seems like Pope Francis is going for a kind of "hate the sin, not the sinner" dynamic, but reframed as "bless the sinner, not the sin." A potential issue with that is that people sin -- it's not like sin exists off on its own outside of people doing it. So while it makes sense to separate the person from the sin so as to not mistakenly present anyone as unsavable, I'm not sure it works when dealing with blessings. How would anyone bless someone as a competitive eater, for instance, when we know that gluttony is a sin? It is still possible to bless said person, of course, but wouldn't it make more sense to do so in a context that isn't constructed around their particular questionable activity, so as to avoid appearing to give cover to many sins, so long as they are identified as some kind of integral part of the person's being? (i.e., anything that can be answered with "As a __________ ...")

In other words, while I believe Pope Francis is correct that it is not possible to bless sin, I do believe that it is possible to present a blessing as blessing sin when that blessing is invoked upon a person in a context which is permissive to sinfulness. For sure, a drunkard should be blessed same as anyone, and it is great to see them in attendance at liturgy, but that is different than blessing the person as a drunkard (cf. blessing gays as members of same-sex couples), since we are not to attempt to have our sins redefined as something else.

So, yeah...it's kind of weird, and seems to be working against what the defenders of this document (and seemingly Pope Francis himself) maintain when they say that the new directive is not blessing same-sex unions.

 

[Lady Bug]

I know my response won't help but oh well.

Earlier this month I went to a "formation night" thingy - and the topic was about this, sort of. The priest made it unequivocally clear that the document was not blessing the unions, but the individuals in the union who were asking for a blessing for whatever other thing that doesn't have to do with the union itself. I don't know if he's right - maybe he read the document - because I didn't. I have stamina issues, lol.

 

[Buzzard3]

Earlier this month I went to a "formation night" thingy - and the topic was about this, sort of. The priest made it unequivocally clear that the document was not blessing the unions, but the individuals in the union who were asking for a blessing for whatever other thing that doesn't have to do with the union itself. I don't know if he's right

It seems to me that that priest's argument is higly illogical - a couple is a union - without a union, there is no couple. Therefore to bless a same-sex couple is to bless a same-sex union.
And are we to believe that the same-sex couple involved is celibate? The likelihood of that is practically zero, therefore blessing a same-sex couple almost certainly amounts to blessing their homosexual acts as well.


Furthermore, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that same-sex inclinations are "objectively disordered" (#2358). Surely only an objectively disordered mind would suppose that God will bless a relationship that his Church teaches is "objectively disordered".


Try to imagine a same-sex couple approaching Jesus and asking him to bless their relationship - the very idea is not only absurd, it's blasphemous.

 

[Lady Bug]

It seems to me that that priest's argument is higly illogical - a couple is a union - without a union, there is no couple. Therefore to bless a same-sex couple is to bless a same-sex union.
And are we to believe that the same-sex couple involved is celibate? The likelihood of that is practically zero, therefore blessing a same-sex couple almost certainly amounts to blessing their homosexual acts as well.


Furthermore, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that same-sex inclinations are "objectively disordered" (#2358). Surely only an objectively disordered mind would suppose that God will bless a relationship that his Church teaches is "objectively disordered".


Try to imagine a same-sex couple approaching Jesus and asking him to bless their relationship - the very idea is not only absurd, it's blasphemous.

Yeah I'm not trying to imply that he has it right, but I was just trying to give another angle.

 

[Reader Antonius]

In other words, while I believe Pope Francis is correct that it is not possible to bless sin, I do believe that it is possible to present a blessing as blessing sin when that blessing is invoked upon a person in a context which is permissive to sinfulness. For sure, a drunkard should be blessed same as anyone, and it is great to see them in attendance at liturgy, but that is different than blessing the person as a drunkard (cf. blessing gays as members of same-sex couples), since we are not to attempt to have our sins redefined as something else.

In all actuality, the distinction you pose is present precisely both Fiducia Supplicans and the accompanying Clarification of the DDF. Put simply, those who present themselves for the blessing must be of a certain disposition. To wit, some quotations:

"11. For this reason, since the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice."

38. For this reason, one should neither provide for nor promote a ritual for the blessings of couples in an irregular situation. At the same time, one should not prevent or prohibit the Church’s closeness to people in every situation in which they might seek God’s help through a simple blessing. In a brief prayer preceding this spontaneous blessing, the ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance – but also God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely." [Fiducia Supplicans]

Aside from the opening paragraphs of Fiducia Supplicans explicitly and repeatedly re-affirming perennial Christian doctrine on marriage, the Clarification triples down:

To be clearly distinguished from liturgical or ritualized blessings, 'pastoral blessings' must above all be very short (see n. 38). These are blessings lasting a few seconds, without an approved ritual and without a book of blessings. If two people approach together to seek the blessing, one simply asks the Lord for peace, health and other good things for these two people who request it. At the same time, one asks that they may live the Gospel of Christ in full fidelity and so that the Holy Spirit can free these two people from everything that does not correspond to his divine will and from everything that requires purification.

This non-ritualized form of blessing, with the simplicity and brevity of its form, does not intend to justify anything that is not morally acceptable. Obviously it is not a marriage, but equally it is not an "approval" or ratification of anything either. It is solely the response of a pastor towards two persons who ask for God’s help.

In some places, perhaps, some catechesis will be necessary that can help everyone to understand that these types of blessings are not an endorsement of the life led by those who request them.

We can help God's People to discover that these kinds of blessings are just simple pastoral channels that help people give expression to their faith, even if they are great sinners. For this reason, in giving a blessing to two people who come together to ask for it spontaneously, we are not consecrating them nor are we congratulating them nor indeed are we approving that type of union. In reality the same happens when individuals are blessed, as the individual who asks for a blessing – not absolution – could be a great sinner, but this does not mean we deny him this paternal gesture in the midst of his struggle to survive."

It really couldn't be more clear this document is both theologically orthodox and certainly morally so. Moreover, it has its best use in the Roman liturgical tradition. The Eastern Catholic Churches – Byzantine, Oriental, & East Syriac – may not be able to integrate such blessings in their pastoral care, there are still no theological reasons that the Eastern Catholic Churches cannot accept them on those grounds. Already, one of the Byzantine Catholic Churches (Ukrainian Greek, Patriarchate of Kyiv) have invoked the privileges of the Ecumenical Council of Florence (CCEO Canon 1492). This is their right in Catholic ecclesiology, and so therefore the document does not pertain to them. I expect most of the Byzantine Churches (especially the Patriarchal) will invoke Florence for the time being.

 

[Chrystal-J]

God blesses everyone? Even Hitler?

 

[Buzzard3]

It really couldn't be more clear this document is both theologically orthodox and certainly morally so.

How did you come to the bemusing conclusion that officially approving same-sex relationships (in the form of a priestly blessing) in the name of the Catholic Church is certainly morally orthodox?

 

[Reader Antonius]

How did you come to the bemusing conclusion that officially approving same-sex relationships (in the form of a priestly blessing) in the name of the Catholic Church is certainly morally orthodox?

Because, impressively, *nothing* in your statement accurately represents Fiducia Supplicans, much less the now even more clear statements by the DDF. Did you even read it? Either of them? And if you did, you clearly did not understand it. That point is quite obvious (unless of course your intent was not to understand it, but to attack it from the beginning).

I mean...with charity...I sort of feel embarrassed for you, to be honest.

 

[Buzzard3]

Because, impressively, *nothing* in your statement accurately represents Fiducia Supplicans, much less the now even more clear statements by the DDF. Did you even read it? Either of them? And if you did, you clearly did not understand it.

I wondering where you consider my reasoning viz-a-viz Fiducia Supplicans to be flawed.

A same-sex couple doesn't amount to a same-sex relationship?

Allowing a priest to bless a same-sex couple doesn't amount to the Church approving same-sex relationships?

P.S. I'm a Catholic.

I mean...with charity...I sort of feel embarrassed for you, to be honest.

Thank you. Your charitable words are most appreciated.

 

[Reader Antonius]

I wondering where you consider my reasoning viz-a-viz Fiducia Supplicans to be flawed.

Because it is patently so. One need not point out the obvious, especially when it can be an opportunity for learning. Or so I approach my ministry, anyway.

A same-sex couple doesn't amount to a same-sex relationship?

It may, it may not. In some cases, there are men who live as brothers in community without romantic dimensions. We call them monks, friars, and canons. Often they will "couple" by friendship or through connection with their immediate superiors.

Of course, I'm being a little facetious here...but not that much. It's the Lord's Day, after all. But, to your point, yes Fiducia Supplicans envisions homosexual couples of who are in, whether by attempted marriage or some other union, approaching the Church for a blessing. Yet, this is where FS diverges from your flawed interpretation. If such a couple approaches the ordained for a blessing, FS and the DDF Clarification give us only the following possibilities:

I. If it is clear that the same-sex couple is openly claiming to "married," and seeks to legitimize their "union" (canon law uses the term "notorious"; as in "noted by many"), they may still be blessed (or may not; it will depend on the prudence of the ordained), but not in a way that encourages affirmation of their error & sin. This is a case where the ordained, if he does bless, it is ordered to granting the grace to remove themselves from their error and sinful situation. To wit, "[Regarding the prayer in no. 38 of Fiducia Supplicans]..."God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely." [This obviously precludes the situation described.]. Or as the DDF puts it more clearly in a semi-formula:

"Free them from everything that contradicts your Gospel and allow them to live according to your will. Amen."

Keep in mind too this is not a ritual blessing, which would involve a liturgical element. In that case, no such blessing could be given due to the nature of liturgical blessings. This would also be a good time, if possible, for evangelization or fraternal correction by the priest; but that would be better done behind closed doors, so to speak.

II. The previous scenario is clearly the one that bothers you most, yet it is quite clearly not the scenario FS or the DDF envisions, nor was written to engage. In this second case, we have a same-sex couple who were "married" many years ago, or otherwise have cohabitated. This relationship involved homosexual activity (which would be the sin, not the living together per se). Nevertheless, by whatever means, they have realized that they are living in a way contrary to God's Will, yet the complexity of their situation (for whatever reasons: whether sexual addiction, significant financial ties, and/or legal issues, etc.) means that their repentance must proceed step-by-step, rather than all at once. We cannot absolve someone who has yet to remove themselves from an objectively sinful situation in most cases. But we can bless them. The goal here is that, given the requisite disposition of both individuals towards God's Will allows for a blessing to be given. This blessing, being constitutive (as it is given by the ordained) has a power to transform, change, or otherwise aid the couple towards separating and living a Catholic life as one with SSA.

III. The third most common case the document envisions however is the spontaneously asking for a blessing; a common practice in the Catholic Church. Many times this may occur without the ordained knowing the state of the couple (man/woman, woman/woman, or man/man, etc.). For example, I have two very good friends who are Benedictine Oblates, and they have lived together for 20 years...but as brothers. Unfortunately, many suspect them as being gay, even priests, when this is not the case at all. Likewise, a heterosexual couple who are planning on getting married, but are unbeknownst to the ordained, cohabitating and having sex. It is not the job of the ordained – and never has been! – to scrutinize each person(s) that come to him on their moral state asking for a blessing. In fact, such a thing is counterintuitive.

A blessing, particularly a spontaneous one, is very different from a Holy Sacrament/Mystery. I chuckle to remember children who'd come up to me (who'd I then direct to a priest, since they couldn't tell from my habit) asking me to bless their dolly or action figure. Now, there's issues with that given the constitutive nature of blessings, but this has been done for quite some time.

But I digress, the point that Fiducia Supplicans makes is that, unless there are reasons to suggest otherwise, a spontaneous blessing may be given to even same-sex couples (or those that appear to be, anyway) or those in irregular situations (these are usually more obvious) without any fear of scandal. Why? Because the spontaneous blessing, like any constitutive blessing, is designed to lead people to greater love & fidelity to God. As FS points out, most of these cases will happen rather unexpectedly. No dates are set; no celebrations or rituals prepared. Simply: "Father/Deacon, may we have your blessing." And, as the semi-formula promoted by the DDF would put it: "Yes, of course: Lord, look at these children of Yours, grant them health, work, peace, and mutual help. Free them from everything that contradicts Your Gospel and allow them to live according to Your Will. Amen."

Unless such a blessing has a significant and substantive chance of leading to scandal in the parish community, there is not reason not to bless (unless the ordained is aware that those seeking the blessing desire it for unholy reasons).

Allowing a priest to bless a same-sex couple doesn't amount to the Church approving same-sex relationships?

P.S. I'm a Catholic.

Thank you. Your charitable words are most appreciated.

Glad to hear you are a Catholic; that should help not hurt your understanding. And you are welcome for the charity. My spiritual father once said the same to me. It hurt to hear it, but it also led me to a greater understanding of the issue in question. It "propelled" me, perhaps by even vanity, to grasp the issue better.

To conclude then: No, allowing an ordained minister to bless a same-sex couple under the circumstances of Fiducia Supplicans & the DDF's Clarification is does not amount to the Catholic Church approving, legitimizing, nor even affirming a same-sex relationship. Full stop.

Now, to elucidate, let's make a list (off the top of my head) of what these circumstances are:

I. The blessing must be asked spontaneously, given as such, with no ritual or any indication of formality (FS no. 38).

II. No blessing can be given if those requesting it are seeking legitimation of their sinful situation; the Catholic Church has no power to bless homosexual "marriages" or sexually active relationships. (FS no. 4-5; DDF no. 1)

III. Blessing may given to those who approach the ordained regardless of his knowledge of their situation:
a. If he is aware of an unrepentant seeking of affirmation, he cannot bless.
b. If he is not aware of this, or, better yet, is aware that the persons are "recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of [God's] help" (FS no. 31, oddly enough), a blessing surely can be given.

IV. When/If a blessing is given (especially in an unsure case, which will be most of them), and without necessarily insisting on a specific forma, it should include a recognition that the ones being blessed are "to open one's life to God, to ask for His help to live better, and also to invoke the Holy Spirit so that the values of the Gospel may be lived with greater faithfulness" (FS no. 40), or as the DDF puts it: "In this case, the priest can recite a simple prayer like this: 'Lord, look at these children of yours, grant them health, work, peace and mutual help. Free them from everything that contradicts your Gospel and allow them to live according to Your will. Amen.'

All of this clearly therefore Not geared to grant "moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice." (FS no. 11). Rather, quite the contrary: these blessings are geared for the opposite. They are designed and being given permission (although they were never unpermitted, truthfully) so as to help people who have been so warped by our society (which has lost its collective mind of just about everything, but certainly true morality & the good!) find their way back to God. In a case where the couple, whether same-sex or irregular, is part of a parish community, then it doesn't stop at the blessing. The blessing begins and continues to be a part of the pastoral care.

There is precedence for this in the now centuries-old pastoral care of alcoholics (and, now, other forms of chemical addiction). I've seen it myself. There's no doubt in Catholic pastoral care that an addict will fall many times before a more healthy stability is achieved. It's obvious to the ordained (or should be). So, what is to be done? On the one hand, one could refuse to bless or even hear the confession of the addict until he is sober. Or, the ordained can bless the addict (if he has the "requisite disposition" as FS puts it), and even give absolution (provided the addict is penitent) will full knowledge, verging on near certainly, that they will fall again. Why do this? Does it not "bless" the addiction? Of course not.

Another analogy can be given. In early stages of opposing the demonic, blessings will be given rather than exorcisms proper. Which is an amusing sort of distinction, since an exorcism is simply a solemn blessing, nothing more. Often these early blessings will help gauge how deep the demonic issue is, and then the pastoral care team & the exorcist can assess what is needed. Yet, if you saw one of these early blessings (especially on someone heavily oppressed and in sin) you might get the impression that the priest is blessing the sin of the person...especially if you were unware of his condition. Yet, the sin of the one oppressed (who is still capable of making choices; only demoniacs in a possessed state cannot make choices) is not being blessed, but the person. Likewise, when a demon manifests in a case of possession or infestation and an exorcism is (minor or major) is performed, are the demons blessed? Obviously not! But the blessing does affect the demonic, as well as either the infested area or the person afflicted. Thus, one could say that the Church is blessing demonic activity, and such a statement (while deeply misleading) is not in se wrong. She is blessing the demonic activity...but in order to drive it out, not encourage it.

These analogies are important aids in understanding the text of the FS & the DDF's Clarification. And even here, the analogies are extreme examples since we are primarily talking about spontaneous blessings lasting 10-15 seconds. Still, the analogies provide a theological and moral basis for what is envisioned and stated clearly in both FS & the DDF's Clarification.

I must soon get ready for Holy Mass, where I will serve as Master of Ceremonies. So I can no farther here. I pray this will be sufficient material to not simply read but also pray over. Insight, wisdom, and knowledge are of the Lord, not of men. For as it is Written: "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. [...] Be not wise in your own eyes..." (Prov. 3:5-7).

Myself first of all!!!

 

[Buzzard3]

Because it is patently so. One need not point out the obvious, especially when it can be an opportunity for learning. Or so I approach my ministry, anyway.



It may, it may not. In some cases, there are men who live as brothers in community without romantic dimensions. We call them monks, friars, and canons. Often they will "couple" by friendship or through connection with their immediate superiors.

Of course, I'm being a little facetious here...but not that much. It's the Lord's Day, after all. But, to your point, yes Fiducia Supplicans envisions homosexual couples of who are in, whether by attempted marriage or some other union, approaching the Church for a blessing. Yet, this is where FS diverges from your flawed interpretation. If such a couple approaches the ordained for a blessing, FS and the DDF Clarification give us only the following possibilities:

I. If it is clear that the same-sex couple is openly claiming to "married," and seeks to legitimize their "union" (canon law uses the term "notorious"; as in "noted by many"), they may still be blessed (or may not; it will depend on the prudence of the ordained), but not in a way that encourages affirmation of their error & sin. This is a case where the ordained, if he does bless, it is ordered to granting the grace to remove themselves from their error and sinful situation. To wit, "[Regarding the prayer in no. 38 of Fiducia Supplicans]..."God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely." [This obviously precludes the situation described.]. Or as the DDF puts it more clearly in a semi-formula:

"Free them from everything that contradicts your Gospel and allow them to live according to your will. Amen."

Keep in mind too this is not a ritual blessing, which would involve a liturgical element. In that case, no such blessing could be given due to the nature of liturgical blessings. This would also be a good time, if possible, for evangelization or fraternal correction by the priest; but that would be better done behind closed doors, so to speak.

II. The previous scenario is clearly the one that bothers you most, yet it is quite clearly not the scenario FS or the DDF envisions, nor was written to engage. In this second case, we have a same-sex couple who were "married" many years ago, or otherwise have cohabitated. This relationship involved homosexual activity (which would be the sin, not the living together per se). Nevertheless, by whatever means, they have realized that they are living in a way contrary to God's Will, yet the complexity of their situation (for whatever reasons: whether sexual addiction, significant financial ties, and/or legal issues, etc.) means that their repentance must proceed step-by-step, rather than all at once. We cannot absolve someone who has yet to remove themselves from an objectively sinful situation in most cases. But we can bless them. The goal here is that, given the requisite disposition of both individuals towards God's Will allows for a blessing to be given. This blessing, being constitutive (as it is given by the ordained) has a power to transform, change, or otherwise aid the couple towards separating and living a Catholic life as one with SSA.

III. The third most common case the document envisions however is the spontaneously asking for a blessing; a common practice in the Catholic Church. Many times this may occur without the ordained knowing the state of the couple (man/woman, woman/woman, or man/man, etc.). For example, I have two very good friends who are Benedictine Oblates, and they have lived together for 20 years...but as brothers. Unfortunately, many suspect them as being gay, even priests, when this is not the case at all. Likewise, a heterosexual couple who are planning on getting married, but are unbeknownst to the ordained, cohabitating and having sex. It is not the job of the ordained – and never has been! – to scrutinize each person(s) that come to him on their moral state asking for a blessing. In fact, such a thing is counterintuitive.

A blessing, particularly a spontaneous one, is very different from a Holy Sacrament/Mystery. I chuckle to remember children who'd come up to me (who'd I then direct to a priest, since they couldn't tell from my habit) asking me to bless their dolly or action figure. Now, there's issues with that given the constitutive nature of blessings, but this has been done for quite some time.

But I digress, the point that Fiducia Supplicans makes is that, unless there are reasons to suggest otherwise, a spontaneous blessing may be given to even same-sex couples (or those that appear to be, anyway) or those in irregular situations (these are usually more obvious) without any fear of scandal. Why? Because the spontaneous blessing, like any constitutive blessing, is designed to lead people to greater love & fidelity to God. As FS points out, most of these cases will happen rather unexpectedly. No dates are set; no celebrations or rituals prepared. Simply: "Father/Deacon, may we have your blessing." And, as the semi-formula promoted by the DDF would put it: "Yes, of course: Lord, look at these children of Yours, grant them health, work, peace, and mutual help. Free them from everything that contradicts Your Gospel and allow them to live according to Your Will. Amen."

Unless such a blessing has a significant and substantive chance of leading to scandal in the parish community, there is not reason not to bless (unless the ordained is aware that those seeking the blessing desire it for unholy reasons).


Glad to hear you are a Catholic; that should help not hurt your understanding. And you are welcome for the charity. My spiritual father once said the same to me. It hurt to hear it, but it also led me to a greater understanding of the issue in question. It "propelled" me, perhaps by even vanity, to grasp the issue better.

To conclude then: No, allowing an ordained minister to bless a same-sex couple under the circumstances of Fiducia Supplicans & the DDF's Clarification is does not amount to the Catholic Church approving, legitimizing, nor even affirming a same-sex relationship. Full stop.

Now, to elucidate, let's make a list (off the top of my head) of what these circumstances are:

I. The blessing must be asked spontaneously, given as such, with no ritual or any indication of formality (FS no. 38).

II. No blessing can be given if those requesting it are seeking legitimation of their sinful situation; the Catholic Church has no power to bless homosexual "marriages" or sexually active relationships. (FS no. 4-5; DDF no. 1)

III. Blessing may given to those who approach the ordained regardless of his knowledge of their situation:
a. If he is aware of an unrepentant seeking of affirmation, he cannot bless.
b. If he is not aware of this, or, better yet, is aware that the persons are "recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of [God's] help" (FS no. 31, oddly enough), a blessing surely can be given.

IV. When/If a blessing is given (especially in an unsure case, which will be most of them), and without necessarily insisting on a specific forma, it should include a recognition that the ones being blessed are "to open one's life to God, to ask for His help to live better, and also to invoke the Holy Spirit so that the values of the Gospel may be lived with greater faithfulness" (FS no. 40), or as the DDF puts it: "In this case, the priest can recite a simple prayer like this: 'Lord, look at these children of yours, grant them health, work, peace and mutual help. Free them from everything that contradicts your Gospel and allow them to live according to Your will. Amen.'

All of this clearly therefore Not geared to grant "moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice." (FS no. 11). Rather, quite the contrary: these blessings are geared for the opposite. They are designed and being given permission (although they were never unpermitted, truthfully) so as to help people who have been so warped by our society (which has lost its collective mind of just about everything, but certainly true morality & the good!) find their way back to God. In a case where the couple, whether same-sex or irregular, is part of a parish community, then it doesn't stop at the blessing. The blessing begins and continues to be a part of the pastoral care.

There is precedence for this in the now centuries-old pastoral care of alcoholics (and, now, other forms of chemical addiction). I've seen it myself. There's no doubt in Catholic pastoral care that an addict will fall many times before a more healthy stability is achieved. It's obvious to the ordained (or should be). So, what is to be done? On the one hand, one could refuse to bless or even hear the confession of the addict until he is sober. Or, the ordained can bless the addict (if he has the "requisite disposition" as FS puts it), and even give absolution (provided the addict is penitent) will full knowledge, verging on near certainly, that they will fall again. Why do this? Does it not "bless" the addiction? Of course not.

Another analogy can be given. In early stages of opposing the demonic, blessings will be given rather than exorcisms proper. Which is an amusing sort of distinction, since an exorcism is simply a solemn blessing, nothing more. Often these early blessings will help gauge how deep the demonic issue is, and then the pastoral care team & the exorcist can assess what is needed. Yet, if you saw one of these early blessings (especially on someone heavily oppressed and in sin) you might get the impression that the priest is blessing the sin of the person...especially if you were unware of his condition. Yet, the sin of the one oppressed (who is still capable of making choices; only demoniacs in a possessed state cannot make choices) is not being blessed, but the person. Likewise, when a demon manifests in a case of possession or infestation and an exorcism is (minor or major) is performed, are the demons blessed? Obviously not! But the blessing does affect the demonic, as well as either the infested area or the person afflicted. Thus, one could say that the Church is blessing demonic activity, and such a statement (while deeply misleading) is not in se wrong. She is blessing the demonic activity...but in order to drive it out, not encourage it.

These analogies are important aids in understanding the text of the FS & the DDF's Clarification. And even here, the analogies are extreme examples since we are primarily talking about spontaneous blessings lasting 10-15 seconds. Still, the analogies provide a theological and moral basis for what is envisioned and stated clearly in both FS & the DDF's Clarification.

I must soon get ready for Holy Mass, where I will serve as Master of Ceremonies. So I can no farther here. I pray this will be sufficient material to not simply read but also pray over. Insight, wisdom, and knowledge are of the Lord, not of men. For as it is Written: "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. [...] Be not wise in your own eyes..." (Prov. 3:5-7).

Myself first of all!!!

Good Lord, it's going to take me a week to read through all that!

 

[Reader Antonius]

Good Lord, it's going to take me a week to read through all that!

Uh...yeah. A combination of an instituted Lector taking his job seriously, mixed with a Dominican past. The truth of God doesn't always fit on a bumper plate, unfortunately.

 

[Buzzard3]

We cannot absolve someone who has yet to remove themselves from an objectively sinful situation in most cases. But we can bless them.

Bless individuals, not couples. Blessing a couple says, "The Church approves of your same-sex relationship".

The goal here is that, given the requisite disposition of both individuals towards God's Will allows for a blessing to be given. This blessing, being constitutive (as it is given by the ordained) has a power to transform, change, or otherwise aid the couple towards separating and living a Catholic life

Where does FS speak of a same-sex couple couple separating?

 

[Buzzard3]

If it is clear that the same-sex couple is openly claiming to "married," and seeks to legitimize their "union" (canon law uses the term "notorious"; as in "noted by many"), they may still be blessed (or may not; it will depend on the prudence of the ordained),

A priest who blesses a same-sex couple whom he knows are engaged in homosexual acts and who have no intention of repenting of those acts is himself sinning.

Try to imagine Jesus blessing a same-sex couple whom he knows are engaged in homosexual acts and who have no intention of repenting of those acts - the very idea is blasphemous.

but not in a way that encourages affirmation of their error & sin.

Absurd.

 

[Buzzard3]

The third most common case the document envisions however is the spontaneously asking for a blessing; a common practice in the Catholic Church. Many times this may occur without the ordained knowing the state of the couple (man/woman, woman/woman, or man/man, etc.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that homosexual inclinations are "objectively disordered" (#2358), so the only rational aim of blessing a same-sex couple would be their separation and the dissolution of their relationship.

What sort of Catholic would imagine that God will bless an ongoing relationship that his Church teaches is "objectively disordered"? Bizarre.

 

[Buzzard3]

a heterosexual couple who are planning on getting married, but are unbeknownst to the ordained, cohabitating and having sex. It is not the job of the ordained – and never has been! – to scrutinize each person(s) that come to him on their moral state asking for a blessing.

Sophistry. Unlike the case of blessing a same-sex couple, blessing a heterosexual couple is not blessing a relationships that is "objectively disordered". In fact, such a thing is counterintuitive.

In fact, such a thing is counterintuitive.

On the contrary, blessing a relationship that the Church teaches is "objectively disordered" is not only counterintuitive, it's objectively disordered.

 

[Buzzard3]

Keep in mind too this is not a ritual blessing,

Irrelevant.