Blessings of same-sex couples in the Catholic Church

A few days ago, Pope Francis released a declaration called "Fiducia Supplicans" allowing for blessings of same-sex couples:

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/...c_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.html

Some European Catholic bishops, like the ones in Austria and Germany, are requiring their priests bless same-sex couples if asked.

Meanwhile, a number of Catholic episcopal conferences in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe are going against Pope Francis and outright refusing to implement "Fiducia Supplicans" because it is against traditional Catholic teaching:

https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/fiducia-supplicans-whos-saying-what

I think we are seeing the beginning of a schism in the Catholic Church, similar to the ongoing schism in the Anglican Communion earlier this year over the exact same issue of blessings of same-sex couples.

 

When the church blesses somebody, what is actually going on?
.

 

I will leave that up to the theologians to debate but we should not be blessing what God calls a sin.

 

It seems to me that the Vatican was quite clear about the blessings being qualified so as to preclude the blessing of the union itself, but that activists and media outlets are taking the Pope's advice out of context and twisting it to mean something it doesn't mean

 

I've asked my brother priests as well as several diocesan priests about this. They came to the same conclusion. The blessings may not take a form that resembles a wedding. Sam sex unions themselves may not be blessed. What is allowed is the blessing of the individuals to the effect of: may they be strengthened in living the Christian life, and living in accord with God's perfect will for them.

Will that stop some priests from abusing these blessings to twist them into a blessing of the union? No.

Will some of the laity take this to mean that the Church secretly endorses them living in sin? Most likely.

Is this a good idea? Time will tell but my gut says no.

 

It is my understanding that the document's introduction was written by Cardinal Fernandez and says in part, "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." (emphasis mine)

So whatever the Catholic understanding of "blessings" was previously, this document purposes to change ("broaden") the understanding in an "innovative" way. What that broadening entails and how it will be re-defined under this document may be the subject of discussion and debate.

If RC priests previously could pronounce a blessing upon an individual who engaged in habitual sin (which seems likely), then the innovation seems to be in the newly expressed, specific allowance of blessings upon couples who appear to openly advertise (dare I say, "flaunt"?) their habitual sin.

The RC leadership appears to be attempting to thread the eye of a needle. They want to present an appearance of openness toward such couples, but they also don't want to appear too liberal in the eyes of the doctrinally conservative members. My take is that this document is evidence of the sociopolitically-motivated nature of present-day RC leaders; instead of praying to God for His will, they stick their fingers in the air and gauge the wind's direction & speed.

 

The Eastern Catholic patriarchs have slowly been releasing statements over the last few days distancing their churches from the statement. They usually contain 3 points: We are autonomous in administration; the statement does not reflect our doctrine or discipline; don't ask for this at an Eastern Catholic parish.

 

Just shows the wrong direction the Roman Catholic Church is taking. It won't be long before they allow homosexuals to marry. That is if Pope Francis lives long enough. He seems to think he knows better than God. May be the next pope will undo all Pope Francis' heterodoxy. Mind you he's made so many cardinal during his pontificate the next pope may be Francis Mark II.

It looks like it won't be long before people will have to start looking East to find an orthodox Christian church.

 

I strongly suspect that will not happen. As with the prospects of ordination of women to the priesthood or the diaconate, the notion will be “seriously and prayerfully considered” before being gently but firmly dismissed.

As Rexlion said:

 

Deleted - duplicate post

 

Here's a new article in the North American Anglican on the subject.

I think Fiducia Supplicans should remind us all that our trust should be wholly centered upon Jesus, the Christ, who suffered and died on the cross and who rose from the tomb, so that through faith in Him we can receive the gift of God's saving grace. Our trust should never be placed in an earthly "church" organization. Trusting in a church (as so many Roman Catholics do depend upon their clergy and their church's Sacraments as dispensers of saving grace) is bound to leave members shaken and disappointed sooner or later. But Jesus never changes, the Bible is our unalterable handbook, and the indwelling Holy Spirit is our sure guide (if we will listen to Him!).

 

Here is another good article in the NAA.

A quote from author, Archdeacon Andrew Brashier: "God did not become man to soothe our sinning but to save us scoundrels and fit us for new wineskins..."

 

I already went as far as looking. However, we tried a new-to-us local Anglican church for Christmas, and happen to be living under one of these https://ceec.info/ceec-welcomes-bishops-dissenting-statement/ . There might be a way to stay Anglican yet.

 

I hope the Church continues to reconsider its draconian stance on this issue. Good for Pope Francis if true.

 

Since when is calling sin 'a sin' draconian?

 

It's not just calling it sin. It's refusing to perform ceremonies and withholding the Church's blessing from the unions of some members of the Church "because of sin" (those who are in same sex relationships) and turning a blind eye and blessing the unions of other members (those who are divorced, those who engaged in adultery and fornication). St James instructs us that "believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism" and yet we have decided some "sinful" relationships can be blessed while others cannot...do we not make ourselves judges with evil thoughts when we do that? I think we do. Love between consenting adults that seeks God's blessing should never be turned away simply because the couple is of the same sex or gender identity.

So, yes, when you discriminate against one group. It is draconian.

 

A church's blessing, at its root, is meant to indicate God's blessing. Will God bless sin? Of course He won't, because it goes against His righteous nature to place His stamp of approval on sin.

It is one thing to bless individuals who seek God's blessing. It is quite another to bless a sinful relationship, because it is saying in essence that God endorses the wrongful behavior.

When a gay couple goes to a priest and, letting it be known that they are a gay couple, request a blessing upon them as a couple (not as individuals, but specifically as a couple), it should be the duty of the priest to inquire as to the nature of their relationship and, unless the couple state that their relationship is strictly platonic and celibate, he should refrain from pronouncing God's blessing upon the couple. This is neither wrongful discrimination nor draconian behavior, for the couple does not meet the qualification standards for such a blessing.

Imagine if a childless couple tried to claim a child tax credit on their annual income tax forms. They don't qualify for that credit. Should the IRS grant the credit anyway so as to avoid draconian discrimination against the couple? In somewhat analogous fashion, the Church has some standards whereby a person may qualify for this or that. Someone who has already been baptized doesn't qualify for a second baptism. A person who is known to the rector as an open flagrant sinner may be refused the Eucharist. These sorts of standards have existed for centuries in the Church, and for good reasons.

People who engage in sinful sexual behavior are not exhibiting the "God kind" of love, the love which places the other person's well-being above one's own; they are exhibiting selfish self-satisfaction (a/k/a lust) in wanton disregard for the health of both their souls (not to mention their bodies, when we consider the STDs and the risks associated with anal activity). Moreover, they are failing to love God above all others. But if anyone thinks that the bedroom activities of such a couple are an expression of agape love, then why stop with consenting adults? Aren't children capable of love, too? Blessings for pedophile couples are the next obvious step in the "irregular couples" spectrum.

 

Has any church, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, (but any), actually officially permitted blessings for adultery or fornication?

 

At least one instance comes to mind.

 

I would also offer this for consideration. Here are some areas where Our Lord speaks directly to divorce and remarriage:

Luke 16:18 - Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Matthew 5:32 - But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:9 - And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

Mark 10:12 - And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.​

St. Paul reinforces this message:

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 - To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.​

A literal reading of these passages, in fact the way it was read for centuries, is that remarriage after divorce was sinful and adulterous and therefore could not be blessed by the Church. That stance has changed in many provinces. See the C of E's website:

https://www.churchofengland.org/life-events/your-church-wedding/just-engaged/marriage-after-divorce

If the Anglican Church can evolve on an issue so profoundly that it turns something that was expressly stated by Jesus Christ as adulterous into something that is worthy of blessing, disregarding the Article XX in the process ("it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another"); then to remain so doggedly legalistic and intractable on the issue when it involves same-sex couples appears very hypocritical and homophobic to me, especially when Our Lord did not speak on the issue of blessing the union of same-sex couples one way or the other.