Wow, incredible work by the Pillar! Personally, I'd like to be the first to thank Cardinal Fernandez for giving this interview, and putting an end to circular speculation on these questions. I also eagerly look forward to the results of his trip to Germany, and I will continue to pray for him, Pope Francis, and all of the work yet remaining, both in teaching and enforcement.
Wow, incredible work by the Pillar! Personally, I'd like to be the first to thank Cardinal Fernandez for giving this interview, and putting an end to circular speculation on these questions. I also eagerly look forward to the results of his trip to Germany, and I will continue to pray for him, Pope Francis, and all of the work yet remaining, both in teaching and enforcement.
Agreed. The confusion continues on several questions. Fernandez has the brass neck to insinuate that the people questioning FS are acting on "ideology", whatever that means. And claiming that blessing couples does not imply blessing their sexual union, when the very word "couple" in English, when used as a verb, means to copulate......perhaps we are arguing over translation and cultural nuances, as the Popesplainers never fail to explain.
As for all the Bishops and priests who are misapplying or misinterpreting FS, I am not holding my breath for any effective action from the DDF.
I'm beginning to suspect that "ideology" is just the current bogeyman.
Even if you are willing to run with the claim that "couple" is not referring to the sexual union between the two persons, the question remains of what relationship is being blessed, exactly? The friendship? The roomateship? Had this been specified, perhaps people who were not engaging in any illicit sexual relationship, or the near occasion thereof, could also have been inspired to ask for such a blessing and the scandal could have been avoided. Instead the document just says there's this thing in same-sex and irregular relationships that can be blessed and should be blessed, specifically as part of the relationship, whatever it is.
I think something along those lines would still have been issued, because I think they are trying to reach out to the German bishops. But I expect it would have been a better document if they had consulted bishops from other countries, as you say.
I think the interview clarified many things, but I am in agreement that you really can't "bless a couple," and by extension, not be blessing a "union, a sinful relationship." (But if I'm living in sin with my girlfriend, as a couple, and we ask for a blessing... how is it different... a question.) The ideological mic drop by Fernandez is a but unfair. We have to deal with intent, which I feel is honest on part of the Holy Father, and practicality, didn't fair so well here. The HF only desires one thing... salvation of souls. If that blessing somehow, and I'm not being naive, opens a way to conversion... this is the Church = Gospel & Mission. Not affirmations or acquiescence. Truth, as Fernandez says.
If you are living in sin with your girlfriend, FS explicitly permits a "blessing" in just the same way and with the same restrictions that apply to a same-sex couple. I can think of several man-woman unmarried couples in my parish who might want such a blessing and there are far more of them than same-sex couples.
It comes down to pastoral discernment, or rather internal forum being played out in front of all to see. Messy... but so is the Gospel. It comes first, doctrine after. If we go to the orginal impetus for this.. "bendicion," in Spanish (he didn't say it in Italian)... or as HF said, "a cry for help." That, again, boils down to the Kerygma. You first announce the love of Christ Risen! which corrects on its own. We can't correct or we kill with words. We announce The Truth, and they have to accept it, which means accepting their sin. The Gospel/Kerygma is math... it flows through the Holy Spirit and gently corrects, if we listen & accept. We cannot EVER give prey to certifying, blessing or ritualizing sin. But many are & will take this as a way to justify living in sin. No Bueno. And I know why many bishops & episcopal conferences are up in arms because of pastoral perception, interpretation.
Right, so the essence of blessing a "couple" but not the reason they are a couple is a grave concern. This couple might very well think the reason for their "coupling" is accepted or condoned leading to additional sin. I'm far more concerned about the "life of it's own" the FS is and will continue to take on.
"Life of it's own" describes one part of the problem perfectly. It does not matter how many carefully worded explanations, prohibitions, clarifications, etc come from Rome. People are already using their own understandings of FS. The controversial "Bishop" Buckley in Northern Ireland has already proclaimed that Rome has finally permitted what he has been doing for forty years. And he has observed that most "couples" will not be happy with a very low key hole-in-the-corner type of "blessing". They will want the full public celebration.
Ditto on the “brass neck” part. I am tired of being lumped into a pre defined category other than how I self define: “attempting to be faithful to the Church diocesan priest” who believes clarity is a sign of charity and a quality of good leadership.
I agree that this doesn't resolve any questions. I think it is clear that "couples are blessed". The ambiguity is caused by Fernandez (and FS) when it attempts to make the case that couples are not a union. This is a distinction w/o a difference. A couple, of any kind, is a union of two persons for a specific purpose, whether it be temporary or permanent. To bless a couple, for any purpose, is to acknowledge that they are joined together for said purpose and to offer them, together, God's grace for that purpose. Thus, Fernandez is doing the post-modernist, relativistic dance of redefining words for his own purposes and acting as though his audience just needs to ponder it long enough to understand him. Hogwash. I am not buying it.
I can think of some friends I'd like to be blessed with--we go on mini-pilgrimages together--but there is zero reason to do that because we can each receive our own blessing.
I believe the ambiguity is purposeful, along with the straw man ideologue part. It is becoming clear that our Holy Father is ok bifurcating dogma from praxis (cf. paragraph 25).
I agree. The example of a couple who are now, but once may have been, unknown to a priest.... Seems a justification for a more “liberal “
movement in the direction of full acceptance of what is not God’s teaching. Most large controversial change start with a very minor beginning, with those in charge telling people they are overreacting . We can love and pray for all, but the clergy should not impart legitimacy.
I'm also interested in the results of his trip to Germany. I also find it interesting that he specifically mentioned them, when the interviewer did not. And am I wrong in thinking that this trip wasn't publicly known before now?
Wow, incredible work by the Pillar! Personally, I'd like to be the first to thank Cardinal Fernandez for giving this interview, and putting an end to circular speculation on these questions. I also eagerly look forward to the results of his trip to Germany, and I will continue to pray for him, Pope Francis, and all of the work yet remaining, both in teaching and enforcement.
I don't think this resolves many questions.
We still don't have a clear answer on whether couples are blessed qua couples or qua individuals.
Agreed. The confusion continues on several questions. Fernandez has the brass neck to insinuate that the people questioning FS are acting on "ideology", whatever that means. And claiming that blessing couples does not imply blessing their sexual union, when the very word "couple" in English, when used as a verb, means to copulate......perhaps we are arguing over translation and cultural nuances, as the Popesplainers never fail to explain.
As for all the Bishops and priests who are misapplying or misinterpreting FS, I am not holding my breath for any effective action from the DDF.
I'm beginning to suspect that "ideology" is just the current bogeyman.
Even if you are willing to run with the claim that "couple" is not referring to the sexual union between the two persons, the question remains of what relationship is being blessed, exactly? The friendship? The roomateship? Had this been specified, perhaps people who were not engaging in any illicit sexual relationship, or the near occasion thereof, could also have been inspired to ask for such a blessing and the scandal could have been avoided. Instead the document just says there's this thing in same-sex and irregular relationships that can be blessed and should be blessed, specifically as part of the relationship, whatever it is.
I think something along those lines would still have been issued, because I think they are trying to reach out to the German bishops. But I expect it would have been a better document if they had consulted bishops from other countries, as you say.
I think the interview clarified many things, but I am in agreement that you really can't "bless a couple," and by extension, not be blessing a "union, a sinful relationship." (But if I'm living in sin with my girlfriend, as a couple, and we ask for a blessing... how is it different... a question.) The ideological mic drop by Fernandez is a but unfair. We have to deal with intent, which I feel is honest on part of the Holy Father, and practicality, didn't fair so well here. The HF only desires one thing... salvation of souls. If that blessing somehow, and I'm not being naive, opens a way to conversion... this is the Church = Gospel & Mission. Not affirmations or acquiescence. Truth, as Fernandez says.
If you are living in sin with your girlfriend, FS explicitly permits a "blessing" in just the same way and with the same restrictions that apply to a same-sex couple. I can think of several man-woman unmarried couples in my parish who might want such a blessing and there are far more of them than same-sex couples.
It comes down to pastoral discernment, or rather internal forum being played out in front of all to see. Messy... but so is the Gospel. It comes first, doctrine after. If we go to the orginal impetus for this.. "bendicion," in Spanish (he didn't say it in Italian)... or as HF said, "a cry for help." That, again, boils down to the Kerygma. You first announce the love of Christ Risen! which corrects on its own. We can't correct or we kill with words. We announce The Truth, and they have to accept it, which means accepting their sin. The Gospel/Kerygma is math... it flows through the Holy Spirit and gently corrects, if we listen & accept. We cannot EVER give prey to certifying, blessing or ritualizing sin. But many are & will take this as a way to justify living in sin. No Bueno. And I know why many bishops & episcopal conferences are up in arms because of pastoral perception, interpretation.
Right, so the essence of blessing a "couple" but not the reason they are a couple is a grave concern. This couple might very well think the reason for their "coupling" is accepted or condoned leading to additional sin. I'm far more concerned about the "life of it's own" the FS is and will continue to take on.
Yes, you are correct. It's sad
"Life of it's own" describes one part of the problem perfectly. It does not matter how many carefully worded explanations, prohibitions, clarifications, etc come from Rome. People are already using their own understandings of FS. The controversial "Bishop" Buckley in Northern Ireland has already proclaimed that Rome has finally permitted what he has been doing for forty years. And he has observed that most "couples" will not be happy with a very low key hole-in-the-corner type of "blessing". They will want the full public celebration.
Ditto on the “brass neck” part. I am tired of being lumped into a pre defined category other than how I self define: “attempting to be faithful to the Church diocesan priest” who believes clarity is a sign of charity and a quality of good leadership.
I agree that this doesn't resolve any questions. I think it is clear that "couples are blessed". The ambiguity is caused by Fernandez (and FS) when it attempts to make the case that couples are not a union. This is a distinction w/o a difference. A couple, of any kind, is a union of two persons for a specific purpose, whether it be temporary or permanent. To bless a couple, for any purpose, is to acknowledge that they are joined together for said purpose and to offer them, together, God's grace for that purpose. Thus, Fernandez is doing the post-modernist, relativistic dance of redefining words for his own purposes and acting as though his audience just needs to ponder it long enough to understand him. Hogwash. I am not buying it.
I can think of some friends I'd like to be blessed with--we go on mini-pilgrimages together--but there is zero reason to do that because we can each receive our own blessing.
I believe the ambiguity is purposeful, along with the straw man ideologue part. It is becoming clear that our Holy Father is ok bifurcating dogma from praxis (cf. paragraph 25).
I agree. The example of a couple who are now, but once may have been, unknown to a priest.... Seems a justification for a more “liberal “
movement in the direction of full acceptance of what is not God’s teaching. Most large controversial change start with a very minor beginning, with those in charge telling people they are overreacting . We can love and pray for all, but the clergy should not impart legitimacy.
I'm also interested in the results of his trip to Germany. I also find it interesting that he specifically mentioned them, when the interviewer did not. And am I wrong in thinking that this trip wasn't publicly known before now?
You're not wrong. It appears the Pillar got a scoop.