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.