Defending Fiducia Supplicans: On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings, Part 3

Part 3 is the last in the series of the defense of the papal Declaration, Fiducia Supplicans.

You can read Part 1 of my defense here.  

Part 2 here.  

Note: This next section was written just before Christmas, and I began to have some doubts, as you will read.

Before I respond to specific comments, and given my schedule before the holidays may not be timely, let me post Cardinal Fernández’s explanation through an interview.  Cardinal Fernández is the man who wrote the document for Pope Francis.  He explains the controversial part this in the interview:

 

These kinds of blessings are simply simple pastoral channels that help to express people’s faith, even if those people are great sinners.

 

Therefore, by giving this blessing to two people who spontaneously come forward to request it, one can legitimately ask God to grant them health, peace, prosperity—the things that we all ask for and that a sinner can also ask for.

 

At the same time, since one can think that in the daily lives of these two persons, not everything is sin, one can therefore pray for them [to receive] a spirit of dialogue, patience, mutual help.

 

But the declaration also mentions a request for help from the Holy Spirit so that this relationship, which is often unknown to the priest, may be purified of everything that does not respond to the Gospel and the will of God, and may mature along the lines of God’s plan.

 

As I was saying, sometimes the priest, on a pilgrimage, does not know that couple, and sometimes they are two very close friends who share good things, sometimes they had sexual relations in the past and now what remains is a strong sense of belonging and mutual help. As a parish priest, I have often met such couples, who are sometimes exemplary.

 

Therefore, since it is not a question of the sacrament of confession(!), but of a simple blessing, it is still asked that this friendship be purified, matured and lived in fidelity to the Gospel. And even if there was some kind of sexual relationship, known or not, the blessing made in this way does not validate or justify anything.

 

Actually the same thing happens whenever individuals are blessed, because that individual who asks for a blessing — not absolution — may be a great sinner, but we do not deny a blessing to him.

 

But clearly we have to grow in the conviction that non-ritualized blessings are not a consecration of the person, they are not a justification of all his actions, they are not a ratification of the life he leads. No. No. I do not know at what point we have so exalted this simple pastoral gesture that we have equated it with the reception of the Eucharist. That is why we want to set so many conditions for blessing.

I continue to believe FS is theologically sound.  So where is the disconnect?  It occurred to me this morning waking from a lousy sleep.  I must have been turning this over in my mind.  In my claim-dispute-refutation exercise I said this:

 

Dispute against claim #3: If you’re blessing a sinner whose identity is integral with a sin, then you are affirming that sin.

Refutation #1

No sinner’s identity is integral to a sin in the eyes of God. It is wrong for a person to identify himself as homosexual, for example, because it reduces the dignity of a human being to a mere act. But it is just as wrong to consider the identity of a person as such because you are doing the same thing in reducing that person to a mere act, even if that person identifies himself as that sin. No one coming before anyone, especially a priest, should be looked at as having the identity as gay or having an identity of a sin.

That refutation may be true but it requires a lot of spiritual growth, a growth not possible to expect from the general public or even the general Catholic layman.  I don’t even know if I have it.  I’ve grown toward it and certainly I try to look at the sinner as not the sin.  As a lay Dominican I’m pushed toward it through regular prayer, frequent confession, spiritual retreats, adoration, and such.  There is no way anyone can expect the general public to not separate the sinner from the sin.  So this ties in to

Dispute against claim #4-1: A gay couple coming before a priest for a blessing de facto implies an affirmation of homosexual marriage/unions.

Unfortunately to the general public that’s how it will be taken.  I don’t know if there will be enough preaching on the subject to change public perception.  This gay identity thing is so engrained in the culture that it will not budge.  While it may be theologically sound, it is not practical.  The Vatican will have to modify FS.

So modify to what?  I think they need to strip the word “couple” out of it and apply the blessing toward individuals or large groups (I’m thinking of the priest who blessed the passengers on the bus.)  Even that can be abused but at least the perception goes away.

So hopefully I answered most of your criticisms.  Have a blessed Christmas if I can’t come back.

###

Note: This was written after Christmas, and overcame the doubt and back to supporting FS.

I was somewhat rushed when I put out my last comment, so let me back fill and also add some further thoughts I’ve had over these last few days.  I have read FS a fourth time now.  I continue to maintain this document is theologically sound.  The critics of this, it seems to me, make two errors, either intentionally or by inference-conclusion bias.  There is also a third criticism of the document which I’ll address as well.

The first error is that of conflating union with couple.  Cardinal Muller does this over and over.  He beats on a strawman argument.  He uses the word union throughout his commentary, and FS clearly states numerous times that no union is being blessed.  A couple does not have to be a union.  A couple, while it may delineate a bond between the two, in no way delineates a specific relationship.  When my wife and I were dating, we were a couple.  With my wife and I being in a married union, we are still a couple.  The nature of what that couple is has changed.  But it’s still the word couple.  A married couple in an irregular union (divorced and remarried without annulment) is also a couple.  You don’t know whether they are living in an adulterous state or as “brother and sister” as they are supposed to live while the annulment process completes.  Two gay men can be a couple in a “union” or in a sexual relationship or in a platonic relationship.  The first two are not acceptable to the Catholic Church.  The third is not a sinful state.  All of these are couples.  The state of grace in these souls is unknown to the outside world.  All of the people in these examples are sinners, including me and if you’re honest including you.  All are in need of grace.  From paragraph 31: “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.”  In Catholic anthropology there is no such thing as a gay union.  The document only uses the word union to make clear what is not being blessed.  A couple are any two individuals that are approaching for a blessing.  The nature of their relationship is irrelevant.  They are sinners not claiming to legitimate their status (whatever that may be) but seeking healing by the presence of the Holy Spirit.  If you think that gay platonic relationships don’t exist, you’re wrong.

The other error I keep seeing concerns the nature of a blessing.  As FS delineates, a blessing has multiple functions.  One function is to provide favor or affirmation.  A boy scout helps an old lady across the street and on reaching the other side she blesses him.  That is an affirmation for the good the boy just did.  That is not the type of blessing being offered in FS.  Another type of blessing is that to a sinner as an imparting of grace for the sinner to be spiritually strengthened—that is as I’ve quoted from FS above, to be “healed and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit.”  A person not in a state to receive communion walks up with his arms crossed to receive a blessing.  That blessing is not an affirmation of anything.  It is an imparting of grace.  In a confessional, the absolution is a blessing not of what a good job you did but a grace to be strengthened.  In fact the very first words you’re supposed to say in the confessional is “Bless me Father for I have sinned.”  All sorts of sinners receive blessings.  Soldiers going off to battle receive blessings.  People undertaking arduous tasks, say an astronaut, receive blessings.  Criminals in jail receive blessings.  People on their death beds in a coma receive blessings.  None of these is an affirmation of any sin past or present.  The two paragraphs following par. 31 make this clear:

 

32. Indeed, the grace of God works in the lives of those who do not claim to be righteous but who acknowledge themselves humbly as sinners, like everyone else. This grace can orient everything according to the mysterious and unpredictable designs of God. Therefore, with its untiring wisdom and motherly care, the Church welcomes all who approach God with humble hearts, accompanying them with those spiritual aids that enable everyone to understand and realize God’s will fully in their existence.

 

33. This is a blessing that, although not included in any liturgical rite, unites intercessory prayer with the invocation of God’s help by those who humbly turn to him. God never turns away anyone who approaches him! Ultimately, a blessing offers people a means to increase their trust in God. The request for a blessing, thus, expresses and nurtures openness to the transcendence, mercy, and closeness to God in a thousand concrete circumstances of life, which is no small thing in the world in which we live. It is a seed of the Holy Spirit that must be nurtured, not hindered.

Do you see that?  FS is quite clear.  It is people’s inference-conclusion bias—otherwise known as jumping to a conclusion—that is the source of the confusion.  The document is not confused.  It’s people’s reading comprehension that has them confused.

A third criticism I see of FS is that the document rests on “legalistic language” or word contrivance.  Well, welcome to theology.  Have you tried reading Thomas Aquinas?  Or how about the Council of Nicaea with the definition of the Trinity?  Three separate persons but it’s still one God because they have one will and are made of one substance?  That’s not “word contrivance”?  Or how about transubstantiation?  The substance of bread and wine are changed to the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ but the material elements of the bread and wine remain the same to the senses?  Hmmm.  Or how about outside of Catholicism, because all religions do this, let’s say the Protestant notion of Once Saved Always Saved?  Because Christ was punished for my sins, I can commit any sin I want because it’s already been satisfied, as long as I believe in Christ?  I can go on with lots of examples.  Those looking suspiciously at another’s theology will always find word contrivance.  FS doesn’t even reach anywhere near the level of word contrivance as any of those examples.  In fact it’s quite clear that couple is not a union.

As I’ve ruminated on this over the last few days what I think has happened is that inference-conclusion bias shaped some readers views and then a hermeneutic of suspicion took root.  Some critics are commenting in good faith; some are setting up strawmen.  As I said before the holidays, the theological distinctions will probably go over the general public’s head and lead to the wrong conclusions.  It would require a large teaching effort on a subject that most priests and bishops even now loath to bring up.  I think FS would have been less controversial if it has used the word “group” instead of couple, and two is also a group.  I think that would have minimized the inference-conclusion bias.  Either they didn’t think of it or the Holy Father has his reasons.  No matter.  I remain docile to the teaching, faith seeking understanding.

Before the holidays I thought the Vatican would have to amend FS in time.  I’m not so sure now.  This was always left to the priest’s discretion, and now the Vatican has made it clear it’s up to the bishops as to the level of implementation.  That flexibility solves all criticism.  I suspect they will leave this alone.

I’m also more hopeful now that I’ve been away from the media on this.  This practice could actually be quite fruitful in teaching the Catholic anthropology of human sexuality.  It could also be quite fruitful in teaching of loving the sinner and not the sin.  I was just watching Johnny Mathis on TV singing a Christmas carol.  I know he’s same-sex attracted.  I know also he’s a Catholic convert.  Being almost ninety I doubt he’s sexually active, but I’m pretty sure he committed sexual sins in his past.  Whatever grace has brought him to sanctity had to do with the presence of the Holy Spirit.  All this blessing is doing is trying to lay the seeds for the Holy Spirit in people’s lives.  I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

But it supposedly took over a hundred years for the public to understand the Trinity

###

Note: This was written just after the New Year as one last final defense.

I have to laugh when I see a polemicist like Robert Royal admit FS is not heretical and yet goes on to rant and rave against the Vatican and the Pope.  From his article today in The Catholic Thing: 

And as many of us could see at the start – and, therefore, were often accused of not having even read the text – though the document was technically not heretical and even restated Church teaching about real marriage, there was a wide chasm between what was explicitly said and what was implicitly communicated.

Ha!  Not heretical, and no you are reading into what is implicitly communicated.  Somebody must have walked him through what an inference fallacy is because just last week he was saying quite the opposite on TV.  There is no implicit communication in a Magisterial document.  What it says is what it say.  Royal goes on to even say how the effect of the document may have persuaded the German bishops to not go into schism.  And yet he rants and raves about how ill-timed the document is.  Huh?  Polemicists need to rant and rave in order to get clicks and to remove the egg on their face from previous statements.

I acknowledge that there are sincere people who honestly read FS and come away with the impression that the blessing of same-sex couples validates a relationship.  And every time I read their augmenting logic, I see the same application of the fallacy that a same-sex couple must by definition be in a state of sin.  I don’t know the name of that fallacy, but I know it’s a fallacy.  That is a conclusion based on an inference, not a fact.  It wouldn’t even hold up in court.

Yes, I know you’ve got a whole list of people who have succumbed to this fallacy, but there are enough who haven’t.  First off the US Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have come out and supported the document.  I have not seen a single US Bishop dissent from FS, and that would include all the conservative ones, notably Cardinal Salvatore Cordileone.  Bishop Robert Barron, who heads the committee that this would fall under, came out with a specific statement which included:

 

The document allows for the possibility of blessing those in irregular or same-sex relationships. Despite some misleading reporting in the media, Fiducia Supplicans in no way sanctions irregular bonds or changes the Church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality. It further specifies that no liturgical blessing can be offered to those in such unions, but rather an informal pastoral blessing. This latter benediction is a calling forth of the divine grace to help those who receive it to live more fully in accord with God’s will and to enhance whatever is good, true, and beautiful in their lives.

Bishop Barron’s Word on Fire ministry published a tract (Clarity in Confusion: An Approach to “Fiducia Supplicans”) on the underlying logic of FS, written by a Dr. Richard Declue, who I have never heard of:  

 

 Here, I think, is another reason for the confusion: a distinction between blessing a same-sex couple and blessing their union. What does it mean to bless same-sex couples but not bless their unions? If you are blessing a couple, are you not blessing their union? In this case, no! And this is what is understandably difficult for people to immediately comprehend. It is not intuitively obvious that you can bless a couple without blessing or condoning their union.

 

So what kind of blessing are we even talking about, then? What is the purpose? The document describes the kind of blessing it has in mind: “These forms of blessing express a supplication that God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his Spirit—what classical theology calls ‘actual grace’—so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love.” The term actual grace is defined in the Catechism: “Actual graces . . . refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification”.

Esteemed professor of moral theology at The Catholic University, Dr. John Grabowski, who specializes in sexual ethics, issued a positive statement.  Even more significant (at least to me being a Lay Dominican) is that Fr. Thomas Petri, O.P. was quoted in Our Sunday Visitor, the most prolific Catholic publication: 

 

Dominican Father Thomas Petri, president of the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, told OSV News he agreed with the USCCB’s assessment, saying the Vatican declaration “is clear.”

 

“There can be no blessing of same-sex relationships in a way that mimics marriage. There can be no ritual. No vestments. No liturgy. Nothing in conjunction with some recent civil ceremony for a couple,” Father Petri told OSV News. “On the contrary, what’s suggested only as a pastoral guidance is the possibility that in some profound religious experience, such as on a pilgrimage or at a spiritual retreat, that a couple striving to live the will of God might spontaneously seek a priest’s blessing (and) that they increasingly be able to do so.”

The Dominican House of Studies is the faculty that teaches theology to Dominicans friars, mostly those in the Eastern Province but accepts widely.  These are no theological slouches, and more importantly they are not of the polemical kind, neither polemical of the left nor of the right. 

But I also hope you’ll watch this less than ten minute homily by Fr. Terrance Chartier of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.  He not only explains FS perfectly and succinctly and how it should be understood, but he also provides an understanding of how it should be applied.  (He even talks about sin of sowing Church discord, which people should take seriously.  I myself have taken that to the confessional more than once.)  He makes many of the same points I made throughout this OP, how all Church documents should be read in in the spirit of docility and not suspicion, and how the potential of abuse is no reason to not generate anything new.  Fr. Terrance also criticizes those on the polemical left and the polemical right.

 

He even quotes Thomas Aquinas!  Father, you should have been a Dominican!  I’m sending that video to Cardinal Dolan, the bishop of my diocese with a note it should be widely disseminated. 

###

Now that I’ve had a few weeks to be away from the issue and certainly been away from the attacks, let me summarize with my final thoughts.

FS remains to me theologically sound.  The Declaration could have been improved by being more specific that persons are being blessed rather than a couple.  This is the cause of the confusion, but I think the Vatican has clarified it enough and given bishops the flexibility to enact it as best fit their diocese. 

The arguments against are the strawman argument about blessing a gay union, which is false, or that a same-sex couple innately implies a state of sin or, more to the point, a lack of desire to amend one’s life.  There is no affirmation of any sin.  The blessing is an imparting of grace to grow toward holiness.  That it can be abused is no argument.  Any sacrament can currently be abused. 

That the blessing of an irregular or same-sex couple can cause the public to misinterpret Catholic teaching is something that requires attention.  But still I do not feel it warrants concern.  The priest will have to use his judgement, but this now is an opportunity to catechize.  The blessing is a teaching moment, which in due time and practice may bring souls to Christ.

With the intercession of St. Catherine of Siena, patroness of this blog, and my personal patroness, I pray that it does so. 

Defending Fiducia Supplicans: On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings, Part 2

This is the second post on my defense of the papal Declaration, Fiducia Supplicans.

You can read Part 1 of my defense here.  

 

A statement from Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, one of the most conservative of US Catholic bishops:

 

“I encourage those who have questions to read the Vatican declaration closely, and in continuity with the Church’s unchanging teaching. Doing so will enable one to understand how it encourages pastoral solicitude while maintaining fidelity to the Lord Jesus Christ,”

I’m sick of the radical semi-schismatic Catholics who have built an anti papal industry criticizing everything Pope Francis says.  They never have a positive word to say about any pope.  They went off on Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II as well.  Listen to real conservatives, not radical ones.

And again, it clearly states that FS is not an affirmation of any sin.  Any abuse is a condemnation on either the priest or the recipient, just like taking communion with mortal sins.  If Fr. Martin has led people astray, he will answer for it in hell.

###

Right, and I believe the response to that would be that in the current document he’s defined the difference between a liturgical and spontaneous blessing.  This is why this document is a development and an addition to the Magisterium.  That’s my understanding/opinion but I’m not a theologian.

I’ll quote from paragraph 31 again:

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. These forms of blessing express a supplication that God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his Spirit—what classical theology calls “actual grace”—so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love.

###

SA Comment:

And one specifically given to a SS couple as such. If it’s not affirming their couplehood, then what else is it doing? Invoking God’s help in managing household chores in a Godly manner? Quite a small gnat to strain out.

My Response:

The blessing is a means to receive grace to grow in fidelity to the Gospel.

###

I understand the concerns.  The concerns comes down to (1) can this be abused and (2) can this lead to Catholics not understanding the Church doctrine.

I’ve responded to #1 multiple times.  Everything can be abused.  Every day someone is abusing the confessional and the reception of holy communion.  This is no different.  The sin falls double on those not acting in good faith, priest or layman, whoever is at fault.

Can Catholics come to an erroneous conclusion about homosexual acts?  Well look at the information being spread out in these days.  The discussion is all over the place.  Nonetheless, if a gay couple doesn’t understand the intent of the blessing and receive one, at some point if they are practicing in their faith, they will come across it.  It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but at some point if they are consistent in their practice they will understand.  And then they will have to make a decision.  The expectation that those in irregular relationships (I don’t just want to single out homosexuals) immediately repent is unrealistic.  It takes time to live the faith to submit to the faith.  It’s now up to the Bishops to teach the doctrine of the sin of homosexual acts, a doctrine that has not changed.  If anything this is an opportunity to explain what they have been reluctant to explain.

WC Comment:

Yes, or in short form, it would have been wiser to remain silent and let the Church’s longstanding position speak for itself. Short of that, every such “blessing” might end with “go and sodomize (or fornicate) no more.” I guarantee that’s not happening with Fr. James Martin and co.

My Response:

Except that the Belgium and German bishops are trying to implement same sex union blessings and needed to be stopped.  This document clearly outlines what is proper and what is not for blessings.  It was probably necessary.

SW Comment:

So FS not only relies on the Church’s perennial doctrine (the definition of marriage and that one cannot bless sin) but “develops” this doctrine with the “Holy Father’s teaching”. And what is this teaching based on – well looking at the footnotes, ~65% is based on what Francis says. He uses no previous Church teachings or quotes from the Fathers to “develop” this. Instead it relies on the “specific and innovative” thought of Francis and on his “pastoral” style. As with his muddying the waters on the death penalty (which changed by him referencing a previous quote of his own), the blessing of same-sex couples and those in “irregular marriages” changes based on the pope’s pastoral feelings. FS is a teaching of Francis and Francis alone.

My Response:

Actually you reminded me.  I meant to go back and look at the footnotes.  So I just did.  So there appears to be three documents that is at the root of the thought: Rituale Romanum (Roman Ritual), De Benedictionibus (The Book of Blessings), Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy. Principles and Guidelines.  

The latter two are self explanatory and seem quite appropriate.  Wikipedia’s entry on Roman Ritual:

The Roman Ritual (Latin: Rituale Romanum) is one of the official liturgical books of the Roman Rite of the Latin Church of the Catholic Church. It contains all of the services that a priest or deacon may perform; and are not contained in the Missale Romanum, Pontificale Romanum, or Caeremoniale Episcoporum, but for convenience does include some rituals that one of these books contains.

That seems pretty appropriate too.  I don’t know what else is needed to make a rather simple point about blessings.  Somehow I suspect there has never been a Magisterial document that addressed blessings.  If you know of an appropriate document he should have included, please tell me.  I’m sure all the critics out there would have found one.

SW Comment:

Manny:

I’m sick of the radical semi-schismatic Catholics who have built an anti papal industry criticizing everything Pope Francis says. They never have a positive word to say any pope. They went off on Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II as well. Listen to real conservatives, not radical ones.

 

Please give us your official list Manny of whom we are approved to listen to.

My Response:

Semi-schismatic is not anyone’s term.  It’s something I came up with on the spot as I wrote the comment.  I was thinking of all those who repeatedly, time after time, issue after issue, sometimes daily, criticize the Pope, never having a good word to say about him, and often don’t even use his title but often disrespectfully call him by other names, including by his birth last name of Bergoglio, which is to deconstruct him of his title and position as the Vicar of Christ.  I would say people like that are semi-schismatic because their head may say they are Catholic, may even claim to pray for the Pope, but clearly their heart is not in charitable sympathy with the Holy Father.  I could give you a list of a few, but now that you have my definition you can probably identify a lot more than I know.  I try not to hang out in those circles.  I’m not  fan of Pope Francis.  He’s too liberal for me but I feel an obligation to be in charitable sympathy with him.  

WC Comment:

I just don’t see this working out the way you do, Manny. I think the German bishops will feel vindicated by this and will move ahead with their plans. You’re making a distinction between “same sex union blessings” and “same sex couple blessings.” I think the rebellious bishops and priests (rebelling against orthodoxy) will see it as a distinction without a difference and will give their blessings without making any call to repentance at all, possibly condemning souls to eternal separation from God. And as my mother always said, the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bad priests.

My Response:

OK, you’re one of those who believe it will be abused.  As I’ve said, anything can be abused.  Will this change the German bishops?  Probably not.  But at least now the distinction between a liturgical blessing and a spontaneous blessing has been defined.  It’s clear what they’re violating.

SW Comment:

Manny Comment:

But at least now the distinction between a liturgical blessing and a spontaneous blessing has been defined.

 

I’ll post his again, Manny. Cardinal Muller lays waste to this line of thinking.

c) The new blessings proposed by FS would be pastoral blessings, not liturgical or ritual blessings. Therefore, they would no longer have the limitation of “ritual” or type “b” blessings. They could be applied not only to persons in sin, as in “ritual” blessings, but also to things, places, or circumstances that are contrary to the Gospel.

These “c” type blessings, or “pastoral” blessings are a novelty. Not being liturgical but rather of “popular piety,” they would supposedly not compromise evangelical doctrine and would not have to be consistent with either moral norms or Catholic doctrine. What can be said about this new category of blessing?

A first observation is that there is no basis for this new usage in the biblical texts cited by FS, nor in any previous statement of the Magisterium. Nor do the texts offered by Pope Francis provide a basis for this new type of blessing. For already the blessing according to the Roman Ritual (type “b”) allows a priest to bless someone who lives in sin. And this type “of blessing can easily be applied to someone who is in prison or in a rehabilitation group, as Francis says (quoted in FS 27). The innovative “pastoral” blessing (type “c”), in contrast, goes beyond what Francis says, because one could give such a blessing to a reality that is contrary to God’s law, such as an extramarital relationship. In fact, according to the criterion of this type of blessings, one could even bless an abortion clinic or a mafia group.

There’s a lot there.  Let me handle these observations one at a time.  Up front, I do not consider Cardinal Muller one of the semi-schismatics.  He’s sound and I don’t find him biased.

It’s the “c” blessing that’s in question.  Cardinal Muller agrees that this is no different than anything prior  (“For already the blessing according to the Roman Ritual (type “b”) allows a priest to bless someone who lives in sin”) except for the part that “goes beyond” the Roman Ritual.  Yes, that is correct.  That is why I believe this is new development in the Magisterium.  I have stated a couple of times, the document in the third unnumbered paragraph states this is new development.

 

The value of this document, however, is that it offers a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings, permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings, which is closely linked to a liturgical perspective. Such theological reflection, based on the pastoral vision of Pope Francis, implies a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church. This explains why this text has taken on the typology of a “Declaration.”

So whether it’s in the Bible is irrelevant.  That statement actually baffles me.  We all know that Catholic doctrine does not have to be in the Bible.  Against abortion, birth control, the Trinity, the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception.  None of that is in the Bible.  And I assume that Cardinal Muller is correct, it is not in the Magisterium prior to this.  That’s what makes it a development.  I think Par. 35 might actually be the development: “35. Therefore, the pastoral sensibility of ordained ministers should also be formed to perform blessings spontaneously that are not found in the Book of Blessings.”  Cardinal Muller and Pope Francis are in agreement.  Unless FS specifically contradicts existing Magisterial teaching, then it is in Pope Francis’ purview to develop doctrine.

Now as to Cardinal Muller’s statement that because of FS “one could give such a blessing to a reality that is contrary to God’s law,” that is absolutely not what the document states.  This is the strawman argument that everyone seems to be making.  Par. 5: “Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.“

Also in the fourth unnumbered paragraph:

It is precisely in this context that one can understand the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage.

And then in Par. 11:

11. Basing itself on these considerations, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Explanatory Note to its 2021 Responsum recalls that when a blessing is invoked on certain human relationships by a special liturgical rite, it is necessary that what is blessed corresponds with God’s designs written in creation and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. 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. The Holy Father reiterated the substance of this Declaration in his Respuestas to the Dubia of two Cardinals.

I guess part of the confusion is that there are ties in logic back to the 2021 document.  I should dig up that document and read it.  But I do believe in that document it calls for sinners to repent. 

Can one bless an abortion clinic?  Of course not for it’s carrying out of abortions.  That would be blessing a sin.  But what if someone collapses outside with a heart attack and a doctor or nurse from inside rush out and help the man and save his life using medicine or tools from the clinic, can the doctor and nurse request and be blessed?  According to FS I would say they can.  

WC Comment:

I’m begging anyone still following this thread to watch the first 12 minutes of this conversation between Matt Fradd (Pints with Aquinas) and my new favorite apologist Joe Heschmeyer (Shameless Popery (which blog name he got from a Protestant friend as a joke/ribbing, btw)). Begging you!!

 

I’ve only watched that much so far, but I’m in complete agreement with Joe — this document isn’t a doctrinal change, but it is a “pastoral disaster.” Are you still here @ manny? Will you agree with that?

 

My Response:

This is  excellent.  Joe H. is great as all those at Catholic Answers.  I think you have to at least go to the 19 minute mark to include the German issue.  The German issue is what has caused the inclusion of the gay couple blessing.  For better or worse.  And I like the way Joe said that you would also not be following Christ if it did not go after the lost sheep.

The entire hour is worth watching.  It was the best unbiased discussion I have seen.

SA Comment:

Do you think they are more likely to do it now than they were before?

My Response:

Immediately it’s not going to make a difference.  If they live a Catholic life and understand Catholic teaching and the Biblical scriptures then I think the seed planted can grow to accept Christ’s obedience over the culture.  It’s like any other sinner.  It takes time.  St. Augustine – the real St. Augustine not you…lol – didn’t drop his sexual sinning over night.  What was his famous line?  “Lord give me chastity, but not yet”  I may be butchering that a little from memory.  But that is what the FS is relying on.  It’s hoping the blessing will plant seeds.   

###

Let’s break this down piece by piece and maybe we can come to the heart of the disagreement.

Let’s start with what we believe FS to state.  These are four potential controversial claims of FS that I see.  If I missed any let me know.

1. FS allows for a spontaneous blessing.

2. FS allows for the blessing of sinners.

3. FS does not allow for the blessing or affirmation of sin, especially gay marriage.

4. FS allows for the blessing of a gay couple as long as it does not affirm their sin.

Now let me state the disputes against each claim and a refutation of the dispute.

Dispute against claim #1: Pope Francis made this distinction up from whole cloth.

Refutation #1:

I don’t know if such a term as spontaneous blessing existed before but it is evident that the practice of spontaneous blessings have always been going on. Just in September when we took a bus down to Washington DC for the Rosary Pilgrimage we had a priest on board and at the beginning he provided a blessing to the bus load. Such informal blessings happens every day. If such a blessing had never been defined in the Magisterium, FS has defined it now.

Refutation #2:

It is within the Pope’s authority to define a new teaching if the new teaching does not violate anything in the Magisterium.  I have not seen one reference to a previous Magisterial teaching that this spontaneous blessing definition would violate.

 

Dispute against claim #2: You can’t bless a sinner.

Refutation #1:

How is the priest supposed to know the recipient is in a state of grace or not? The very nature of spontaneous blessings would have to be stopped. If a person sneezed in front of a priest, would the priest have to hear his confession before he could say God bless you?

Refutation #2

People walk up to a priest and ask for a blessing all the time. There have been priest’s blessings prior to Congressional openings. We know there are sinners there. Priests bless criminals in jail. I'm sure on my bus there were sinners on board when the priest gave a blessing.  I know that for sure because I am a sinner.  A priestly blessing is not contingent on a soul’s state. You don’t even have to be Catholic to receive such a blessing. This claim is not met in historical practice.

 

Dispute against claim #3: If you’re blessing a sinner whose identity is integral with a sin, then you are affirming that sin.

Refutation #1

No sinner’s identity is integral to a sin in the eyes of God. It is wrong for a person to identify himself as homosexual, for example, because it reduces the dignity of a human being to a mere act. But it is just as wrong to consider the identity of a person as such because you are doing the same thing in reducing that person to a mere act, even if that person identifies himself as that sin. No one coming before anyone, especially a priest, should be looked at as having the identity as gay or having an identity of a sin.

Refutation #2

FS defines a blessing as not affirming a sin.

Refutation #3

FS clearly states in multiple places that such blessings should be done in a way to not imply that the blessing is affirming a sin.

 

Dispute against claim #4-1: A gay couple coming before a priest for a blessing de facto implies an affirmation of homosexual marriage/unions.

Refutation #1,

As in the dispute to claim #2, how is a priest supposed to know the couple is a gay union? If me and my brother, or me and my son, or me and a male friend, or even me and a female friend who is not my wife approach a priest for a blessing, how is the priest supposed to know the relationship? Is he supposed to inquire? You would not want such formality for a spontaneous blessing.

Refutation #2

FS clearly states that such a blessing is not an affirmation.

Dispute against claim #4-2: A gay couple coming before a priest will take the blessing to be an acceptance of their homosexual union.

Refutation #1.

a. FS clearly states that no blessing of sin is possible and that such a gay union is not licit.

b. If the gay couple honestly reaches that erroneous conclusion, then the blessing will not be efficacious and in time living out a Catholic life they will learn the truth. Just as beginning Catholics or uncatechized Catholics or exploring non Catholics eventually learn that one can only take communion in a state of grace, homosexuals who truly wish a Catholic life will understand Church teaching on homosexual acts.

c. If the gay couple dishonestly entices such a blessing for self-affirmation, then that is clearly a sin and they condemn themselves.

 

Dispute against claim #4-3: A liberal priest can use FS to bless a homosexual union.

Refutation #1:

Such a priest would be in violation of Church doctrine and the claims of FS. He would be abusing his vocation, be committing a grave sin, and subject to discipline.

Refutation #2:

A liberal priest could do that now without FS. It’s irrelevant to FS.

 

Dispute against claim #4-4: The appearance of giving a blessing to a gay couple can cause scandal and lead to a general belief the Catholic Church now approves of gay marriage.

Refutation #1:

FS clearly states otherwise. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states otherwise. No Church teaching would substantiate that claim. Church policy on marriage is articulated as such and actual implementation of policy would reject any request for a gay nuptial. It would be generally known but if such erroneous knowledge starts to take root it becomes incumbent on the bishops to teach otherwise.

 

Dispute against claim #4-5: This is a step toward the Church approving gay marriage in the future.

Refutation #1.

Church Magisterium has clearly been established that no such definition of marriage can be accepted.

Refutation #2.

FS clearly affirms the established Magisterial teaching of an acceptable marriage. Homosexual marriage is just not possible in the Catholic Church.

You can read Part 3 here, the final post in the defense.

Defending Fiducia Supplicans: On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings, Part 1

On December 18, 2023 Pope Francis through the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith—the Church office in charge of teaching the doctrine of faith and morals—issued a Declaration (a Church document that provides an authoritative statement) on the nature and practice of blessing couples in irregular married states and same-sex couples.  As with anything dealing with homosexuality and religion, a fire storm is certain to erupt.   It did.  And continues.  The media has had a field day, misinforming what the document says, and Catholic polemicists, both those on the left who desire approval of same-sex unions and on the right who go hyperbolic at any inference of liberality, have also been out with either a misinformed understanding of the document or a strawman argument of a distorted understanding, sowing seeds of discontent and frankly scandal.  I am going to present a defense of Fiducia Supplicans (FS).  It may take more than one post.  

First, if you wish you can read FS here.  There is an English translation tab if the document does not pop up in English.

Second, the context. 

Part of the controversy began back in 2016 with Pope Francis’ publication of Amoris laetitia (The Joy of Love), an Exhortation on how to pastor to families.  One of the subjects it took up was in how to deal with families of irregular marriages.  There was an ambiguity perceived in whether sacraments could be offered to those in a divorced and remarried state.  Some bishops questioned what Pope Francis intended, and so a back and forth went on for several years until Pope Francis published in 2021 an official response called the Dubio.  One of five questions in the Dubio concerned the blessing of same-sex couples, and Pope Francis in response agreed it was not allowed, but his response in turn was further questioned.  FS was a final clarification on this one question of blessings of people in irregular marriages and same-sex relationships.  Succinctly, could people in such conditions receive a blessing?  It required the explanation of what a blessing is, on what can and cannot be blessed, and how to pastorally administer such blessings.

Also as part of the context, the Bishops in Germany and Belgium were not only blessing persons in sinful relationships, but advocating for the blessing of same-sex unions.  The bishops in both those countries—and perhaps in other European countries likely to join them—were willing to schismatically separate from the Catholic Church over this issue.

###

Summary of FS:

The document is written by Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, Prefect (that is, head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith) and signed by Pope Francis.  Though written by Fernández, it carries the full weight of the Papal office, and therefore Magisterial.

The document is a “Declaration,” and has 45 numbered paragraphs plus five unnumbered at the beginning under the heading of “Presentation,” which I would take as providing the context.  Besides the context, which I have already summarized above, there are three important sentences in the third unnumbered paragraph:

 

“The value of this document, however, is that it offers a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings, permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings, which is closely linked to a liturgical perspective. Such theological reflection, based on the pastoral vision of Pope Francis, implies a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church. This explains why this text has taken on the typology of a “Declaration.”

This makes the claim of a doctrinal development in the understanding of blessings, something new in the 2000 plus years of the Magisterium.  I do expand a little on this post below. 

FS is then divided into an “Introduction” (three paragraphs) and four parts.  The four parts are titled:

I. The Blessing in the Sacrament of Marriage (par. 4-6)

II. The Meaning of the Various Blessings (par. 7-30) which is further subdivided:

            a. The Liturgical Meaning of the Rites of Blessing (par. 9-13)

            b. Blessings in Sacred Scripture (par. 14-19)

            c. A Theological-Pastoral Understanding of Blessings (par. 20-30)

III. Blessings of Couples in Irregular Situations and of Couples of the Same Sex (par. 31-41)

IV. The Church is the Sacrament of God’s Infinite Love (par. 42-45)

Like most (if not all?) papal documents, the title is taken from the first few words.  In this case, Fiducia Supplicans comes from the first three words of the first sentence, “The supplicating trust of the faithful People of God receives the gift of blessing that flows from the Heart of Christ through his Church.”  The division and subdivision titles are self-explanatory.  It takes the reader through the Sacrament of Marriage—what it is and what it is not.  It goes on to outline what it means to liturgically bless, especially of marriage, a short discourse on the blessings within sacred scripture, and the distinction between the different types of blessings.  It goes to outline when and how blessings of couples in irregular situations and those with same-sex attraction.  It sums up with an expansion of the very first sentence, of how blessings flow from the love of God through the Church.

I must admit I have always wondered what a blessing actually is, and we get a beautiful explanation in the first thirty paragraphs.  The distinctions between blessings will come out below.

In hindsight, I’m also seeing the significance of the title Fiducia Suppicans, “The Supplicating Trust.”  Definition of supplication: “the action of asking or begging for something earnestly or humbly.”  This is at the heart of the declaration.  Those who approach for a blessing are approaching in supplication, begging out of humility and earnestness.  There is an act of seriousness and honesty to those that humbly beg for a blessing.  If they are in earnest, they are not trying to “sucker” the church for an affirmation of their lifestyle. 

The gist of the Declaration is that blessings come in several types.  The Church cannot change the nature of marriage being between a man and a woman, and re-emphasizes this Magisterial teaching.  It states that the Church does not approve of blessings of irregular and same-sex unions, nor of affirming such sinful situations, but it does approve of couples to receive a blessing that imparts grace.  This is the sticking point with the critics, they insist there is no distinction between a blessing that affirms (say a marriage) and one that imparts grace to give strength or improve (say a soldier going off to battle).  Any blessing is an affirmation.  As I will show, this is just wrong and FS clearly says it is wrong.

 The following is my defense of FS, mostly through a give and take on a conservative political (not specifically religious) Social Media site called Ricochet.  Participants in the discussion were not all Catholics.  I’m only going to include my comments and only include other people’s comments when my response requires the context of what I’m responding to.  There may be a disjuncture from one paragraph to the next in my comments, but that is because I’m jumping from one comment to another without providing the dialogue.  If I did include it all, this would be a huge post.

I will say I was the solitary defender of the document, and, frankly, frequently received what I’ll characterize as hostile scourges.  This is a sensitive subject, and conservative veterans of the culture war (which I am one too) are not pre-disposed to accept what amounts to a small liberalizing step.  This may be a liberalizing step but it’s also a line in the sand to the limit of same-sex coupling.  It offers a pastoral embrace of the sinner—refusing to alienate—while teaching the sin is not acceptable.

I started defending FS from the charges it was heretical, which it is clearly not, but in doing so I grew to appreciate it, and think it wise. 

###

OB Comment:

How does the Church bless “couples in irregular situations” without expressly condoning the sexual activity that forms the basis of the “irregular” union?

My Response:

Did you read the document?  Did anybody here read the document?  Read the document.  It does no such thing.  The document lays out what exactly is a blessing, why anyone can receive a blessing, why in no way affirms sin, and the intentions of those seeking a blessing.  It’s only ten pages or so long.  Catholics have an obligation to read it, especially if they are going to spread erroneous claims.

My first reaction was similar.  If an irregular couple (referring to more than just homosexuals; divorced and remarried are also irregular without nullity of previous marriage) approaches for a blessing isn’t that a de facto acceptance of the situation.  The document clearly says no.  From paragraph 31:

 

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. These forms of blessing express a supplication that God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his Spirit—what classical theology calls “actual grace”—so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love.

Anyone understanding this Magisterium – and the opening paragraphs indicate that this now is Magisterium – approaching for such a blessing will have to understand what their disordered lifestyle is and seek to overcome it.  A gay couple will have to feel a sense of compunction that may actually do more for them to seek freedom than to if no blessing, or even individual blessing.

Can’t this be abused?  Well yeah, everything can be abused.  What if the recipients of the blessing lie?  So?  If someone holds back a mortal sin during the sacrament of confession, is that a flaw in the sacrament or an abuse by the sinner, which is a sin in itself?  If someone intentionally receives communion at Mass having a mortal sin on their soul, is that a flaw in the sacrament or a further sin by the sinner?  If one takes a rosary and uses it to pray to satan, is that a flaw in the sacramental or a flaw in the sinner?  There is nothing different here with these blessings.  

This document is actually intended to repudiate the German bishops who want to give such blessings to gay unions – that is the union itself.  It clearly denies them the right to do so.

Finally I bless people all the time.  If I bless you, am I affirming any sin you committed?  If someone blesses me for helping them in the afternoon, is that affirming any sin I committed in the morning.  Of course not.  

And confirmed by the more conservative National Catholic Register: “Vatican Says Priests Can Bless Same-Sex Couples Without Condoning Their Lifestyles“.

###

I have come to realize that one must be very selective in the media one listens to when it comes to Catholic news.  There is a hermeneutic by which Church documents and the pope are spun.  The secular media have no understanding of Catholic issues.  The radical liberal Catholics want to push the Church into what is heresy.  The radical conservative media want to refuse to accept any developments (and development in Catholicism has a very specific meaning, and no it does not mean refuting any past doctrine) that have arisen.  You have to find good conservative Catholic resources to understand what is doctrinal.  There is an industry out there that has cropped up that distorts what comes out of the Vatican.  

My recent discovery of Michael Lofton’s podcast, “Reason and Theology,” has been a blessing to me.  Lofton is an expert on the history of the Magisterium, all the way from the apostles to today.  If you don’t want to read the ten page document, here Lofton walks you through the document, paragraph by paragraph, almost sentence by sentence.  It’s a little over an hour.  The last twenty minutes is his opining, which you can skip.  If you want to make a good faith effort to at least understand the Holy Father, you should at least watch this hour.

 

No it is not lawyerly.  It’s theological, and I guess you don’t read many papal documents.  This is way clearer than most.

Well, theologians speak in a particular language. You want to read difficult church writings, read St. Augustine. It will make your head spin. This papal document is about as clear as it gets. Other than a few Latin terms, it is completely straightforward. 

OB Comment:

Sum up the message in a sentence.  

The recitations of existing doctrine on marriage comprise a repeated assertion that nothing has changed which would not be required unless something did.  To say clearly that it is not a formal endorsement of same-sex marriage is not a defense against the claim that it is in fact an approved means to present a tacit acceptance of same-sex relationships.   It is that tacit acceptance as I discussed in my previous comment that is the novation being buried under the verbiage. 

My Response:

From Paragraph 39:

39. In any case, 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. The same applies when the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple.

I don’t know how it could be clearer.  And that’s not the only place he states it.  At some point it’s you who refuse to accept the words written on the page.

###

SW Comment:

The document clearly says no.  From paragraph 31:

You left out the most important part of paragraph 31 Manny, the first sentence:

Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex, the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage.

These are not individual blessings, they are blessings for couples. 

My Response:

If you’re implying that I was hiding a key sentence, well you didn’t read my comment that you took the quote from.  Further below I address it head on:

 

Anyone understanding this Magisterium – and the opening paragraphs indicate that this now is Magisterium – approaching for such a blessing will have to understand what their disordered lifestyle is and seek to overcome it. A gay couple will have to feel a sense of compunction that may actually do more for them to seek freedom than to if no blessing, or even individual blessing.

 

And did you even read the sentence you said I left out?  Here’s the key part of the sentence: “the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage.”

Have you counted how many paragraphs contain a reference to it not applying to marriage?  Of the 45 paragraphs, nine paragraphs contain a reference to it not applying or implying any form of acceptance of gay marriage.  9 out of 45, a full 20% spends indicates what you claim it doesn’t.

###

SA Comment:

Manny:
Anyone understanding this Magisterium – and the opening paragraphs indicate that this now is Magisterium . . .

Meaning that it’s infallible according to Catholic theology?

My Response:

Yes, I believe so, 

From the third paragraph, unnumbered introducing the document:

The value of this document, however, is that it offers a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings, permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings, which is closely linked to a liturgical perspective. Such theological reflection, based on the pastoral vision of Pope Francis, implies a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church. This explains why this text has taken on the typology of a “Declaration.”

Apparently no document in the 2000 years of Church Magisterium has there been an explanation of what a blessing actually is, what it does, and under what circumstances it can be given.  This is the first.  

I found the explanation on the nature of blessings fascinating.  It was something I had always wondered about.

End of Part 1.  Part 2 can be found here.