Vatican officially OKs Catholic blessings for gay couples

[dUSt]

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

From Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and tradition.  We are called to be active members of the Church, and this is most especially true during very dark times when the Magisterium appears to be publishing support for sin.  "Live and let live" turns out to be devoid of charity, generally speaking.

You implied Luigi would go to hell if he just tried to be obedient and give money to the church. Where does Scripture or Tradition say someone would go to hell for this?

3 hours ago, Anomaly said:

I wish mj was harmless.  

I guess it all depends on what you'd be comparing it to. Harmless compared to what?

[KnightofChrist]

On 12/18/2023 at 3:59 PM, Luigi said:

The idea of NOT having standardized blessings puzzles me. The Church tends to standardize everything (with some optional additions and deletions, of course). There's a Book of Blessings - words to say when the priest blesses a house, a religious medal, dogs on the feast of St. Roch, animals on the feast of St. Francis, bells, altars, church organs, and on and on. So to allow every priest who blesses a union to make it up as he goes along seems contradictory and open to all sorts of abuse. 

They could have had well structured prayers to convey the need for repentance and turning away for sodomy but that was not their actual intent. They attempt only to placated the conservative Catholics to give the appearance that nothing has changed officially. But in practice unstructured spontaneity is the clear intent. Because that will allow this to develop further and in a years it in practice will be closer to what is now allowed by progressive Angelicans. Which also just happened a few days ago. Which is basically weddings in all but name. Similar but they're a few years ahead.

We're frogs in a pot of water slowly reaching the boiling point.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, dUSt said:

You implied Luigi would go to hell if he just tried to be obedient and give money to the church. Where does Scripture or Tradition say someone would go to hell for this?

Luigi may have had a pinch of sarcasm when he said it, but if we take it seriously Jack has a point. Keeping your mouth shut and your wallet opening isn't a way into heaven.

Edited December 21, 2023 by KnightofChrist

[Norseman82]

The only legitimate blessing for one guy who is planning to have physical contact with another:  

 

[KnightofChrist]

I miss the like feature now.

[tinytherese]

https://dwightlongenecker.com/a-parish-priest-on-fiducia-supplicans/?fbclid=IwAR0aIpmz-MWQ3TLUQ9gMkTvyYp79yV-o8bIp9AssPByDzbjzNkJcPaWLrUw

A Parish Priest on Fiducia Supplicans by Fr. Dwight Longenecker

Now having had a chance to read Fiducia Supplicans– the new document from the Vatican on blessings, I have a few thoughts from the point of view of a parish priest.

As usual, I advise readers to avoid jumping to conclusions by reading (and believing) headlines, social media posts and scare quotes. Here is the document itself. If you are concerned read it. Here is the comment on the document from the US bishops conference. Also, as usual, I encourage Catholic readers to read the document with an open mind and heart–not pre-judging or condemning or condoning something based only on one’s emotions and presuppositions.

But first, to the various  responses to this document: Rod Dreher has written a long blog post here about it in his usual dramatic style. I like Rod and he is a personal friend, but it is worth remembering that he has a hefty readership of conservative Christians and he is good at throwing red meat to his hungry audience. His blog post is most interesting where he references the West’s submission to the ancient demon gods of Mesopotamia: Tammuz, Ishtar and Molech. I’m not sure I agree with the more extreme aspect of his warnings, but he is a good prophetic voice and his blog (and sub stack) always make for juicy reading.

He, along with Eric Sammons at Crisis magazine and other conservative voices have expressed dismay about Fiducia Supplicans–some in apocalyptic “we must resist!” language. Meanwhile Fr James Martin SJ and other activists for the LGBTQ ideology–along with the mainstream secular media–have proclaimed a great victory. Claiming that “Vatican blesses gay unions” and the predictable half truths and misrepresentations. So what do we make of this document and how does it affect ordinary Catholic parish life on the ground?

First of all, the document affirms the traditional teaching on marriage and the impossibility of homosexual “marriage”. It also stipulates that if homosexual couples are blessed, the blessing is not to be liturgical in any way so as not to cause confusion and give the impression that this is a marriage. It also goes on rather tediously to explain how it may be a good thing for individuals who are sinners to pray for God’s blessing, guidance, support and strength to do the right thing. Yes. OK. Thanks for that, but as one commentator has rightly pointed out, “It has always been ok for priests to bless people and ask God to help them do the right thing. Why did we need a great long document telling us that this was also okay for homosexual couples and others in “irregular” relationships?” The reason, this commenter opined, was because the authorities wanted to explicitly and purposefully promote and validate homosexual relationships while not appearing to do so.

Of course we may ask God to guide and help of all sorts of sinners, but that is not what the LGBTQ activists actually want. When they say they “want the church’s blessing” they mean “we want the Catholic Church to condone our activities and ideology”. They are using the language in the popular understanding meaning “They have given me their blessing” which means “They have approved of my course of action.” Predictably, the mainstream media headline writers have also taken this popular understanding of “You have my blessing.”

This comes from a popular mis-understanding of what a priestly (or diaconal) blessing actually IS. The meaning of blessings has been degraded to mean no more than a bland tolerance or kindly acquiescence. So it is worth asking what a blessing actually is. What happens when I, as a priest, am ask to bless someone or something?–and this happens on a regular and frequent basis.

Catholics love blessings. So after Mass a child trots up and says, “Can I have a special birthday blessing Father?” an older couple wait patiently and say, “It’s our fiftieth anniversary can we have a special blessing?” or the long stream of folks wanting devotional objects, sacramentals and images blessed. All of this plus whenever there’s food going Father has to “give the blessing”. In addition folks want just about anything blessed: bless the house. Bless the new car. Bless the pets on St Francis’ Day. Bless me when I sneeze. Bless me when I don’t sneeze. You get my point. Father is a fount of blessings.

Catholics love blessings because we understand reality through the “sacramental vision”. We believe God actually pours his grace and goodness into the world through physical things: primarily through the incarnation of his Son who takes flesh of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but by extension through his mystical body the Church–which is the sacrament of salvation, and by the church through the sacraments and, by further extension through the sacramentals and ultimately, and possibly although in a diffused way, through the “sacrament of creation” in other words all created things.

The authors of Fiducia Supplicans go to some effort to provide a theology of blessings, explaining from Scripture how a blessing may be one of “descent” in which we invoke God’s blessing on some person or thing. Then there is a blessing of “ascent” in which our praises ascend to God in worship. The blessings we are concerned with here are more those of “descent” and the document makes clear that by asking for such a blessing the person is (theoretically at least) submitting themselves to God’s perfect will.

Therefore when a priest or deacon pronounces God’s blessing he is, by virtue of his ordination, praying for God’s goodness, truth and beauty to be poured out on and in and through that physical person or object. This is what a blessing is. We believe it is not simply a prayer for God’s guidance and support and warm feelings, and this is where I take issue specifically with Fiducia Supplicans: it  talks about “expanding” the pastoral aspect of blessings, but in fact weakens the understanding of blessings. It seems to indicate that a blessing is no more than a prayer for God to help, guide and support a person.

This same weakness is evident in the official post Vatican 2 Book of Blessings. There are words for blessing all sorts of things in the Book of Blessings, but in fact the prayers are not really blessings at all. They are almost all simply prayers for God to help and support the people using those things.

So first of all, in analyzing the text from the Vatican we should be clear about what a blessing is and is not. By all means offer prayers for support and guidance to sinners and follow up on your good words of support and guidance by supporting and guiding them to the confessional. However, if you are a priest or deacon and you are giving a blessing, then it should be a formal, liturgical blessing by which you, through your apostolic power, impart God’s blessing on that person or object. To say a blessing should not be liturgical cheapens the blessing to not much more than a cheerful wave and greeting, “God Bless You!” a comment after someone sneezes or a condescending remark from a Southerner… ” Bless her heart….Aww, Bless.”

To be clear what I mean by blessing I should compare it to a curse. If you curse someone or something, by your willful subjection of that thing or person to Satan you consecrate that person or thing for damnation. Those who work in the ministry of deliverance will testify to the fact that curses and maledictions DO something. They put that person under a cloud of spiritual malevolence. The object cursed for use in occult ceremonies can carry evil into a person’s life. That’s why when a person is delivered from occult bondage they must burn their tarot cards, ouija boards, occult books and all other paraphernalia associated with the dark side.

A blessing is the opposite of a curse. It is a real invocation of God’s power, protection, providence and prosperity for that person. It is a little exorcism if you like–consecrating that person, that object, that food, that drink for the goodness, light, life and love of God.  To bless a person in this respect it would be most appropriate to do so after they have been to confession and received absolution. This is comparable to the blessing a priest gives at the end of Mass. At that point the people have been forgiven and made their communion so they are in a state of grace to actually receive God’s blessing most abundantly.

This is what a blessing is. It is not just praying for God to help someone. It is not a pat on the head saying, “I like you. I think you’re grand and God does too.!” It is not simply a smile and a nod approving a person’s lifestyle because you want to be kind. If people think that is what a blessing is, they’ve got it mixed up with a greeting card.

So to conclude, how does Fiducia Supplicans play out in parish life? It means I will continue doing what I already do: doing my best to rise above my naturally grumpy nature to welcome all who are seeking the Lord–to encourage and support them no matter what their condition in life and to help them find the Lord’s forgiveness, healing and love. When asked to bless people and things I will invoke God’s blessing on them with faith, hope and love.  If I am aware that they are alienated from the Lord I will try to be a good pastor and lead them to a state of grace. I will also be aware of the present culture wars–realizing that the best way to battle against all forms of decadence and despair is to build up a joyful, faithful Catholic parish and school community–to prepare young people for marriage as best we can, to support our marriages and families, to nurture our children together and to thereby show by our actions and life together what God’s plan is for the human family. When we encounter those who are tempted to indulge in sin of any kind I will seek to listen to their struggles, counsel them in the ways of virtue and offer absolution when they stumble and fall.

In that sense, at the parish level, it’s business as usual. However, I can see that Fiducia Supplicans  will have other effects in other places. Firstly, although the document states, “From a strictly liturgical point of view, a blessing requires that what is blessed be conformed to God’s will, as expressed in the teachings of the Church”  it is unavoidable to conclude that the blessing of “a couple in an irregular relationship”  implies approval of that relationship. Also, The document says that blessings of same sex couples should not be liturgical or  cause confusion with marriage ceremonies. From my experience in the Anglican Church, this is a piece of naivety on a monumental level. To be fair paragraph 39 states,

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.

But here is what will happen: Gary and Larry will plan a “non liturgical blessing”. The non liturgical rule opens the way for them to plan their own “blessing event” on the beach or at a posh hotel. They will invite a friendly priest and since it is “non liturgical” the priest will be free to make up his own form or words or the couple can write their own vows. Guests will be invited. There will be flowers, “groomsmen” or “bridesmaids” fancy clothes, music, candles and all the trimmings. But “It isn’t a wedding!”

Will the priest demur in obedience to paragraph 39? How would he do so? Will he be involved in the planning and say “Sorry guys. In my opinion this is too much like a wedding. Come in more casual clothes, can the flowers and the music and the fancy food and the guest list and the swanky hotel.” But (and this is more likely) he is not involved in planning because it’s just an informal event right? But he turns up at the location and finds everybody there and waiting with all the bells and whistles. What does he do? Walk out? Tell them all to go home? I doubt it.

To put it briefly, the intentional ambiguity of Fiducia Supplicans opens the door to just about every subversion of marriage demanded by the enemies of the faith, but that same ambiguity means the document is toothless.

[Norseman82]

From Fr. Chris Alar, which sums up why many are confused by this:  

 

[dUSt]

5 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

I miss the like feature now.

We still have a like feature:

1. Hit reply
2. Type "I like that"
3. Hit submit

[little2add]

I like that

[KnightofChrist]

I like that

And that

[Anomaly]

14 hours ago, dUSt said:

I guess it all depends on what you'd be comparing it to. Harmless compared to what?

I don’t intend to hijack this thread, but comparing the harm as not having it part of society as a recreational pursuit, or accepting it as inevitable and not worth the pain of trying to exclude it’s use?

Which is most corrosive to society?

That is also the question on the blessings.    Will the hoped for benefits out weigh the potential abuse?

 

 

@tinytherese  interesting opinion from Fr Longenecker     Thanks

 

[KnightofChrist]

Communiqué of the Ukrainian Bishops' Conference on the Declaration of the Dicastery of the Faith "FIDUCIA SUPPLICANS" on the Pastoral Significance of Blessings.

The document of the Vatican's Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith examines the different types of blessings that can be given by clergy outside the liturgy. The document also emphasizes that only those who want to live a life pleasing to God and ask for a blessing can be blessed liturgically. Instead, it expands the understanding of extra-liturgical blessing, which is usually given to all people, by introducing the possibility of "blessing same-sex couples." It is this possibility that has caused a storm of reactions and misunderstandings about the moral and doctrinal issues in the Catholic Church regarding this kind of blessing.

And this is because the concept of "blessing" is perceived by many as "permission", especially as "permission to sin". While the entire document makes it clear that there is no "permission" or "blessing" for homosexual cohabitation or any life of sin, nor any change in the Church's traditional teaching on marriage, the notion of blessing same-sex couples, or sacramentally unregulated couples, can be perceived as legalizing these relationships.

The document seeks to emphasize the boundless love of God for all people, sinners included, and in this regard to show that the Church does not reject these people, namely, persons with homosexual tendencies or even actions. However, it seems that the text does not clearly distinguish between a person and his or her situation, mercifully accepting this person and expressing disagreement with his or her sin.

At the same time, the document focuses mainly on two categories of people: those living in sacramentally unregulated relationships (men and women) and same-sex couples. Thus, the document treats the situation of sacramentally unregulated male-female couples and same-sex couples equally. Both situations are in a state of grave sin, but they should be treated separately.

We see the danger in ambiguous wording that causes divergent interpretations among the faithful. What we missed in the document is that the Gospel calls sinners to conversion, and without a call to leave the sinful life of homosexual couples, the blessing may look like an approval. However, we emphasize that the document repeatedly emphasizes that the blessing of same-sex couples is in no way a legalization of such cohabitation, and the teaching of the Catholic Church on the Sacrament of Matrimony, which is the union of a man and a woman, remains unchanged.  

Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops of Ukraine

English Source: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2023/12/ukraine-bishops-conference-chooses.html?m=1#more

Original Source: https://rkc.org.ua/blog/2023/12/19/yepyskopat-ukrayiny-nemaye-blagoslovennya-na-zhyttya-u-grisi/

[dUSt]

5 hours ago, little2add said:

I like that

I like this

[KnightofChrist]

Müller: Blessings for gay couples are blasphemous

Quote from his letter
 

"The difficulty of blessing a union or couple is especially evident in the case of homosexuality. For in the Bible, a blessing has to do with the order that God has created and that he has declared to be good. This order is based on the sexual difference of male and female, called to be one flesh. Blessing a reality that is contrary to creation is not only impossible, it is blasphemy. Once again, it is not a question of blessing persons who “live in a union that cannot be compared in any way to marriage” (FS, n. 30), but of blessing the very union that cannot be compared to marriage. It is precisely for this purpose that a new kind of blessing is created (FS 7, 12)."

 

 

Source: https://newdailycompass.com/en/mueller-blessings-for-gay-couples-are-blasphemous

[fides' Jack]

20 hours ago, dUSt said:

You implied Luigi would go to hell if he just tried to be obedient and give money to the church. Where does Scripture or Tradition say someone would go to hell for this?

My comment was in the context of the overall conversation.  The implication of the original statement was basically, "even if my priest supports blessing homosexual couples in their sin ("problematic to say the least" - which is correct), I'm not going to speak up, nor will I withhold my money".   I implied that a person who "keeps their mouth shut" and their "wallets open", in a time when it's imperative to take a stand, will ultimately go to hell.  

That is not being obedient, it is the opposite of obedience; it is, in fact, complicity with the sin in question. 

But you're looking for a Bible verse.  Here's one: 1 Corinthians 6, 9-10.  Follow that up with Ezekiel 3:18-19, and Isaiah 58:1.  You can also look to CCC 1869 and the surrounding, the Summa Theologica treats with this, multiple encyclicals, etc...  We are NOT to be silent about ongoing, public, widespread sin, and especially not to bless those sins.

20 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Luigi may have had a pinch of sarcasm when he said it

I assumed as much, as well.  I don't think @Luigi is going to hell.  Quite the opposite - he made some really good points in his initial post on this thread.  I agreed with 90% of his post.  At the very least, as he said, this is problematic, for a number of different reasons, not the least of which is the fact that people (including some bishops and priests) are taking this as explicit permission to approve same-sex relationships.

[Luigi]

Random thoughts: 

1. The average lay person can't understand Vatican documents prima facie. Several people, on this board and in other media, have said, "Don't overreact. Read the original document." There's wisdom in that, of course. And let me tell you that I have excellent reading (English) credentials: BA in linguistics; 99th percentile on the English section of the Graduate Record Exam; master's in English (teaching of writing); grad certificate in teaching of writing; grad certificate in teaching of English as a second language; certified & licensed professional interpreter; decades of teaching experience in language-related topics.

But all of my excellent English reading skills are not still not enough for me to understand this Vatican document - or any Vatican document - correctly. These are specialized documents; the target audience is primarily clergy (rather than laity); the primary purpose is pastoral (rather than educational); the terminology (properly called 'jargon' when related to a specialized topic) has specialized meanings - usually very narrow and specific - that are related to philosophy, theology, and centuries of other Church documents, and I have no training those related topics. 

So, yes, I did read the original document. Next, I'm going to read the federal tax code (or some Supreme Court opinions, or the engineering standards for earthquake-proofing existing buildings) - and I'll come away from that with a just-as-muddy understanding, even though I can define all the words on the page. Which is why I say... 

2. Thanks to everyone who has posted analyses-explanations-interpretations of Fiducia supplicans. Each one has provided valuable background, insights, clarifications, etc. (I do feel like I'm taking a three-credit-hour graduate class in Fiducia supplicans - who knew you could spend this much time try to figure out eight pages of your native language?!)

3. God loves us even in our sin, but also calls us all to holiness. A number of commenters have mentioned that the intent of the document is to stress God's unbounded love for all people, including those in irregular and/or same-sex relationships. And I believe that absolutely. Being a sinner of the old school myself, I know that God loves us while we are yet sinning. So the concept of God's infinite love for each person is an essential foundational concept for any discussion of this topic. 

But it's only a foundational concept, and it's not the only concept that applies. A paraphrase of "God loves all people" would be "God wants what is best for all people." And according to the revealed Word of God, "what is best" for people is celibacy for single people and traditional marriage for the rest. 

In other words, God does indeed love us completely, even while we are yet sinning, but doesn't want us to stay stuck in our sin. "You shall be holy, for I am holy" (Lv 11:45) and "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt 5:48). 

It seems to me that blessing an irregular relationship recognizes God's infinite love for the couple, even while yet sinning, but doesn't recognize the individual call to holiness that follows from it. And it seems to me that the Church (through its bishops, priests, and deacons if not its lay people) has a responsibility to proclaim that call to holiness. 

4. Don't we bless things so that they'll lead us to God? My workaday definition of "to bless something" is "to dedicate it to God's use; to use it for God's purposes." Here we get into the lay person's generic understanding of 'blessing' compared to the theologian's understanding of the technical meaning of the word. And what's the difference between my version of 'blessing' and synonyms such as 'consecrate'? Let's set that aside for the moment. As a practical example, when a young married couple buys a house and asks Father to bless the house, with the whole family present, they're saying to each other, to their children, to their neighbors, and to the Church, "We dedicate this house to God and God's purposes; everything we do in this house will be done with God in mind." 

I realize that God can bring good out of bad situations, even out of evil - I've experienced that myself. But it seems to me to be ... what? .,.. presumptuous? ... to say to God, "Use this bad/immoral situation to lead these people closer to you." Would any of us ask God, through a blessing by a cleric, to "Bless my alcohol addiction; use it to lead me closer to you," "Bless my pornography habit; I dedicate it to your purposes," "Bless my physical abuse of my children; I do it always with You in mind"? It seems like a contradiction in terms (or purposes?) to dedicate something of which God disapproves to God's use and purposes.

5. The inspiration of the Holy Spirit led to Pope Francis' election. Francis is the pope. He was elected by the duly constituted College of Cardinals, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So I'm just sitting here trying to figure out how to synthesize Fiducia supplicans with what I already know of Catholicism. At the moment, to quote Mark Twain, "It's too many for me." 

6. What are the effects of Fiducia supplicans on me personally? Nothing.
- I can't cancel Fiducia supplicans; I can't withdraw it; I can have no effect on it whatsoever. And I accept that. - I'm not in a same-sex relationship. Therefore, I'm not going to ask a priest to bless my same-sex relationship.
- Will I attend the blessing of a same-sex union (or a celebration afterward) if invited? No. 
- I will continue praying for the conversion of sinners. 

That is all.

 

(For now)

[KnightofChrist]

[KnightofChrist]

Now we see why Pope Francis removed all Africans from any leadership roles in the Roman Curia.

Africa may well help save the Church, they don't play stupid or play word games like many in Western nations are doing.

[Luigi]

12 hours ago, Anomaly said:

I don’t intend to hijack this thread, but comparing the harm as not having it part of society as a recreational pursuit, or accepting it as inevitable and not worth the pain of trying to exclude it’s use?

Which is most corrosive to society?

That is also the question on the blessings.    Will the hoped for benefits out weigh the potential abuse?

 

 

@tinytherese  interesting opinion from Fr Longenecker     Thanks

 

Catholics don't think of anything that's culturally based as "inevitable." Aztecs thought of human sacrifice as inevitable, Chinese thought of foot-binding as inevitable, and so forth. But Catholics base their understanding of human beings on God, and God's Word-teaching-law, and our relationship to God; that's the only stuff we consider to be inevitable. And we consider that all the other 'evitable' stuff should be dropped in favor of conformity to the truly inevitable. 

[Luigi]

Here is a letter from Bishop Erik Varden, OCSO, of Trondheim, Norway to the priests of his diocese. He titles the letter "On Fiducia Supplicans." A priest whose opinion I trust calls it "A sane, balanced, calm, measured, spiritually sound reaction by the inimitable Bishop Erik Varden." I found it readily comprehensible. But it still illustrates my earlier point that the average lay person can't come to a proper understanding of any Vatican document prima facie - note all of the references the bishop includes in his letter, from a whole slew of diverse sources, none of which would have occurred to me when I read the original document.   https://coramfratribus.com/archive/on-fiducia-supplicans/

 

Edited December 22, 2023 by Luigi

[little2add]

 :-)

Edited December 22, 2023 by little2add