Today we encounter Jesus’s in His first
stages of ministry. We see Him preaching
with authority and being singled out by a demon as “the Holy One of God.”
Then they came to Capernaum,
and on the sabbath Jesus entered the synagogue and taught.
The people were astonished at his teaching,
for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes.
In their synagogue was a man with an unclean spirit;
he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth?
Have you come to destroy us?
I know who you are—the Holy One of God!"
Jesus rebuked him and said,
"Quiet! Come out of him!"
The unclean spirit convulsed him and with a loud cry came out of him.
All were amazed and asked one another,
"What is this?
A new teaching with authority.
He commands even the unclean spirits and they obey him."
His fame spread everywhere throughout the whole region of Galilee.
~Mk
1:21-28
This is a brilliant homily from Bishop Robert
Barron. Every sentence is incredibly
enlightening.
I agree the
Deuteronomy quote projects Christ, but here's a devil's advocate question:
couldn't it be projecting any of the prophets, especially Isaiah whose lips
were purified? But it is referring to
Christ.
Meditation: "What have
you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth?"
That question should not be
taken only as coming from a demon.
I hope you are asking that yourself.
After Jesus is baptized (see last week’s
Gospel) by John the Baptist, John’s fortunes “decrease” while Jesus’s begins
His ministry.Today, in gathering some
of His disciples, He announces the Kingdom of God.
After
John had been arrested,
Jesus
came to Galilee proclaiming the gospel of God:
"This
is the time of fulfillment.
The
kingdom of God is at hand.
Repent,
and believe in the gospel."
As he
passed by the Sea of Galilee,
he saw Simon and his brother
Andrew casting their nets into the sea;
they
were fishermen.
Jesus
said to them,
"Come
after me, and I will make you fishers of men."
Then
they abandoned their nets and followed him.
He
walked along a little farther
and
saw James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John.
They
too were in a boat mending their nets.
Then
he called them.
So
they left their father Zebedee in the boat
along
with the hired men and followed him.
~Mk
1:14-20
This week Fr. Joseph Mary of the Capuchin
Franciscans makes you feel the full force of Christ’s call to repent. .
Fr. Joseph Mary does not seem like an
introvert to me, but that may be deceptive.I had no idea what menudo is.I
never had it.I looked it up and
yuck.We never do hear how that young
man resolved his anger that evening.Do
you think that young man repented?My
intuition tells me he did.
Meditation: "This is the
time of fulfillment.The kingdom of God
is at hand.Repent, and believe in the
gospel."
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.
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.
