Thank you. Sometimes the law of the church can prevent an encounter with God. In the tenth chapter of Acts of the Apostles, the pagan Cornelius wants Peter to come visit him and his family. Peter has a vision from an angel that tells him despite the fact this is strictly forbidden in the religious law, he is not to call them unclean. He goes to visit them. And not only do they convert but Peter comes to a deeper understanding of Jesus by his forbidden encounter. For this reason, we should look to Peter and his successors when we become too concerned with the law.
You describe an incident where an adulterous woman was presented as an individual who was already condemned, and yes, Jesus showed mercy to her and told her to go and sin no more.
You are NOT describing an incident in which an adulterous woman who is holding hands with her lover approaches Jesus and wants Him to bless them as a couple even with a "generic blessing" for whatever is "good" about their relationship and wave them on, ignoring the rest. This, not your example, is akin to FS.
You summarize the position of the DDF here: "The decision proffered in the DDF document, namely that individuals in an "ecclesially non-conforming" relationship can be blessed, assuming the blessing is not perceived or presented as a marital or similar blessing." To be honest, I've read a lot of opinions this week, and I have yet to see a single one where the writer disagrees with the idea that "individuals . . . can be blessed." The thing is, the DDF document does not say that individuals can be blessed. You are summarizing the 2023 DDF document as though it is the 2021 one, where "individuals" are not prevented from being blessed. Precisely what is at issue here is whether "couples" or "unions" can be blessed, not "individuals."
The rather clever theological argument, reiterated by the cardinal, says that "couples" exist as an entity that can be blessed, and that the blessing does not de facto condone their sinful relationship, since he takes pains to distinguish between "couples" and "unions." Whether this distinction is really possible is at least debatable.
The comments here at the pillar have been overwhelmingly ones of good will and charity. The same goes for the writing of the pillar staff. I think many of us are doubtful of some of these fine distinctions, which is why we are so upset about this document. I do think that the vast majority of people here probably agree that "individuals" can be blessed. I hope that helps.
I think we would all agree that the definition of marriage is a good one. But I can't agree with you about your hair-splitting point. The problem is that I can't think of a single other instance where the Church approves the idea of a priest blessing an entity whose existence is contrary to natural and divine law. I've seen a lot of things blessed by priests in my life. I also bless my food several times a day, I bless my children, I bless people who sneeze, etc. I can't think of a single case where the Church blesses something that is by its very nature ordered in a way contrary to God's law. It's not hair splitting. The two people in a divorced-and-civially-remarried union or the like might be wonderful people. They are certainly made in the image and likeness of God. And I have not seen anyone saying that they can't receive a blessing *as individuals*. But I know for a fact that their marriage/cohabitation is not ordered to the good and therefore probably shouldn't be blessed. I don't see how that's hairsplitting.
And I don't want this to come across as presumptuous or morally superior. I'm a sinner in need of God's grace and mercy. It seems to me that if the Church blesses something, she approves it, even if there is a document that tries to say otherwise.
I don't know if you have kids, but I do, and I've been thinking about this from their perspective today. When our priest blesses things, they are usually things that are good in and of themselves, even if they might also be persons who are in a state of sin. I just don't see how that can apply here. What would my kids think if they saw a priest blessing a couple who we knew to be living in an invalid marriage?
No desire for clickbait here. But I hope you can see that for many of us the concerns raised by the document (and the further explanations offered in this interview) are real.
Also, you write: “Especially offensive are those who misuse Scripture to justify the premise that those not in a state of grace cannot be given a blessing by a priest.” Can you point to a specific instance of someone arguing for this view? I honestly don’t think I’ve encountered that this week. I agree with you that this premise is completely wrong.
Let’s try it this way. Many of us think it’s actually FS that’s engaged in hair splitting, ie, between blessing a “couple” and a “union.”
If we stipulate that individuals can be blessed regardless of their moral or spiritual state, can you at least concede that those questioning the distinction between blessings of “couples” but not their “unions” may be doing so in good faith? I for one agree with Aristotle that the mark of an educated mind is the capacity to entertain an idea without agreeing with it. We are all trying to entertain the argument behind this distinction in FS. Can you entertain the arguments against that distinction and credit those positing those arguments with good faith?
If I understand you correctly then I agree with you. It seems to me the issue is primarily the words of the blessing? If two men or two women who you do not know to be in an irregular relationship approach you and ask for a blessing with no more explanation what blessing would you give? If the words were simple, “May Almighty God bless you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” then, to me, the only issue is whether that public act creates scandal if done in front of others who know the couple to be in a relationship. That is less of a worry to me than Fr James Martin blessing his known openly gay couple friends and having a photo of it in the NYT.
Yeah, I’m no expert in anything and probably haven’t spent 5 mins thinking about the precise wording of a blessing … but, of course, I’m glad you do. But your first paragraph answered my question. Thank you.
Honestly - I understood it that way! I did not read anything else into it but was simply agreeing with the sentiment that I’ve never really thought about the words that carefully. I really do appreciate you taking the time to answer my comment.
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?
Given how the German Ad Liminia visit went, I doubt that Cardinal Fernandez will have much sway over the Germans. Orthodox Bishops in Africa may be much more responsive to pressure from the DDF though. Perhaps at a loss of souls, from how the local Africans are already seeing this document as evidence of a loss of the Church's moral authority.
Whatever it means to ask for God's blessing, God Bless the Pillar and Cardinal Fernandez.
Thank you for this interview. Still, I wonder what his answer would be to the question "why did you think this proclamation is necessary?" If it really isn't teaching anything new as it doesn't seem to, and as Cardinal Fernandez confirms here, why issue it at all? Is the fallout on all sides really worth this simple affirmation of what so many of the faithful already knew to some degree? Was the clarification necessary, or even worth the damage it could do?
This is especially on my mind in view of Fr Martin's contention in an ABC news interview that previously he wasn't allowed by the Vatican to bless a gay couple at their backyard BBQ party and now he is. And I was like, what?
Because the backyard BBQ party was actually their wedding party . .and now it can seem like a wedding party with a blessing (at a simple backyard BBQ.)
It seems very clear to me that the main target of the document is the attempt of some bishops conferences to erect a liturgical quasi-marriage blessing for same sex couples. Whether it will stop them, it at least clearly lays out the Pope’s rejection of that possibility. As that movement has been building, it needs answered.
Pope Francis wants to uphold the ban while still seeming friendly and fatherly to same-sex acting people, and encouraging the Church to be friendly and motherly to them instead of coldly singling them out for scorn. That’s the whole story.
A classic from this pontificate; make a few statements that no one can disagree with and hide the revisionism in the middle. You can't bless a "couple" ( note: not two people but a couple) without blessing the union. If nothing has changed, there was no need for FS, with the publication of FS, everything has changed. And nothing concrete about Germany, note. Just more waffle. We've seen this before in the world and especially in the Anglican church - if you can make people think they are not being truly Christian by opposing a small "merciful" and "pastoral" step, then the door is opened to larger changes. Anyone who thinks this is not a significant move should study the recent history of the Anglican church.
"You can't bless a "couple" ( note: not two people but a couple) without blessing the union." Isn't this exactly what happens at the end of every mass, except that, instead of a couple, it's a couple of hundred?
As ou well know, that is a generic blessing. Blessing two individuals who are living in a same sex union, in the way James Martin did, is entirely different. This can only be interpreted by the faithful as an approval of their relationship. That's the definition of scandal, for me.
Cardinal Fernandez was talking about generic blessings too in what he was approving. So, again, contrary to what you said, you can bless a couple. In my comment, I was just arguing with that one point you said that I quoted. I'll argue with you again on the "this can only be interpreted ... as approval of the relationship," since I can interpret it differently. You're posturing here. Whether there will be scandal or not is off-topic to these quotes of yours, though I strongly agree with you that there will be abuse and scandal (tons of it, in fact). I don't believe His Eminence should be making this minute distinction at this time.
He was not speaking of generic blessings. There's an entire Book of Blessings that FS explicitly excluded from blessings for same sex couples, because that would be liturgical. Therefore the blessing would be specific to the couple.
Yes, a blessing at the end of Mass bestows a blessing on many people, all of whom are frail, imperfect, in need of mercy and grace, etc. Some of these people are probably dealing with actions in their life that are gravely sinful. Still the blessing on this collection as a congregation does contain an approval, of course the Church approves of all these people attending Mass and freely bestows her blessing on them. In no way does such a blessing condone every aspect of everyone’s life, precisely because what is being blessed is the thing that turns this collection of persons into a congregation of the faithful: the fact that they attended the Mass.
The blessing of a divorced-and-civilly-remarried couple is not like that at all. They are not being blessed because they happen to be standing next to each other and ask the priest simultaneously for a blessing. You can’t just tuck all the language about not condoning or not approving into a Vatican document and then simply proceed with a blessing of a group of two (and why stop at two?) people in an “irregular union” without at least seeming to condone that union. Who could blame someone for interpreting it that way? What would a child think, seeing such a blessing take place?
Yes, the couples who the document is talking about publicly self-identify as a "gay union". The document allows the priest to have private reservations, but the extent to which he articulates that good-versus-evil ('couple' vs 'union') distinction in the blessing, he is forcing the blessing on the couple.
Think you all are making way too much of this. He's blessing two people. That should be welcomed. Love the sinner not the sin. This is common sense. Give people the benefit of the doubt. Why do we need to throw around epithets like LGBT juggernaut. I think that's what he's referring to when he references ideology.
Thanks. But it is our/my position that distinguishes culpability of the sinner, from gravely wrong behaviour. We are only judging the latter, saying that the Church can never legitimately affirm that which contradicts the building of human communion. Your position seems to conflate judgement of culpability (which. with respect, is irrelevant to this discussion) with judgement about behaviour (which is basic to revelation and evangelisation). Prominent aspects of the LGBT movement similarly conflate, for they treat as awful sinners anyone who dares to call same-sex sexual activity a sin.
And why do you not see the dilemma...oh, you're probably not a priest, so it won't be your problem.
Very easy for to decide what a cleric should do. A priest is being asked not to bless two individuals at the same time, he is being asked to bless a couple as a couple.
There is such a thing as a "conscience" when it is well formed this take precedence over, "Just do it!"
The reality is no gay couple is going to ask for a “ blessing” unless the priest understands they are seeking a blessing of the union. Why else would they ask?
yes indeed, unless they want to move away from it, and that is the beginning of not being a union and repentance - very different from wat is being proposed here.
Good gosh, if you can't see the difference between blessing a congregation, with people in all sorts of situations and two people of the same sex or in an "irregular union" asking for a blessing as a couple there is no point in continuing a conversation.
I went to a colleague's "wedding" in 1990 in a picture postcard ancient church on the south edge of Oxford. I wondered how on earth the Anglican vicar was going to handle it as the bride was divorced. You had to be pretty alert to recognise that it was NOT, repeat NOT, a wedding. The bride came up the aisle dressed in full flowing white gown on her Dad's arm, etc. There were just four weasel words in the service which gave it away: Bless their marriage, "already recognised by law". They had already got legally hitched at the registry office. The never ending disintegration of the Anglican communion offers little hope to the serpent tongued compromisers.
Thank you Edgar for providing us this interview and to Cardinal Fernández to granting it to the Pillar.
I am still left with the question why the word "couple" was so conspicuously used. In colloquial English this word connotes that the two individuals are currently having (as far too many do outside of matrimonial bonds these days), or will have in the future (as in a courting couple discerning marriage), sexual relations. This intrinsically links the word "couple" with the word "union", be that union permanent or temporary, to a great many English speakers.
Now, I'm not sure if this is a cultural or linguistic difference between the good Cardinal and those who are having trouble parsing this document. He seems keen to insist on separating the words "couple" and "union" in a way that feels weirdly irrational to readers like myself. Because of this relationship between the terms, I am having a very hard time understanding why the DDF didn't use a word that doesn't have this link, like the word "pair."
It would make more sense, to me, to say that it is pastorally beneficial to bless a pair that they may "ask God to grant them health, peace, prosperity." This would have better separated the idea that the relationship need not have necessarily have a current sexual component when, "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." Furthermore, it would divorce the connection that the blessing would, even by accident, validate the "union" shared.
At this point, there needs to be serious work to explain in detail how the words "couple" and "union" can be theologically separated in a way that makes sense to English speakers. Or the document needs to be amended so that the word "couple" is replaced with a word or phrase that better denotes the DDF's understanding of just who or what is receiving the pastoral blessing.
I'm not sure that it's only an issue of English translation. I'm also not sure that use of the word "pair" would have resolved many Catholic's concerns.
To take a different example: What if a cannibal asked a priest to bless a rack of barbecued human ribs, served with a side of potatoes? Personally, I would have grave concerns if the priest blessed it as a "meal" or as a "dish" or as "food." If the ingredients truly are unknown to the priest, that's one thing. But once the irregular ingredients are known, I don't think it can be blessed in that way. I don't think it would change anything to know that the priest is only asking God to grant the cannibal good health, or that the priest is only focused on the taters. Any blessing of it *as* a meal would seem to be a validation of the cannibalism itself.
yes .. or blessing an Israeli air-force squadron while privately holding to Just War principles (e.g. of Double Effect). The extent to which the priest articulates the document's concept of "couple" he is contradicting the couple's public self-identification as a gay union. He either blesses disorder or disorders the blessing.
So if two gay men asked a priest for a blessing separately it'd be OK, because they're not a "couple"? Isn't this just semantics? Why does it matter either way? That's how I read his response. It's very clear.
Yes, in the same way that any of us (all of whom are sinners) could ask for a blessing.
The analogy was meant to separate the issue from romantic relationships, but I think the same distinction could be found in other irregular relationships. A married man and his mistress with whom he is having an affair can each ask for a blessing. But that is different from them asking for a blessing *as* a couple.
Key difference for me is that our individual identity/nature is always something good but the way in which this identity is enhanced by a publicly self-identifying "gay couple" is disordered. The person presented is still fundamentally good, the union presented is intrinsically disordered.
Cardinal Fernandez, my question is this. We have been learning about synodality for the years. We participated in consultations of the laity and our bishops went to Rome. FS does not reference synodality, or even the bishops, virtually all the references are to Francis. Why should we bother with synodality when the innovations are issued by the supreme pontiff, and we are are all expected to contemplate and obey what he says rather that what synodality says?
Maybe it's just me...maybe I lack the capacity to "read serenely and without ideological prejudices," but when I read this: "Couples are blessed. The union is not blessed, for the reasons that the declaration repeatedly explains about the true meaning of Christian marriage and sexual relations," I wonder what the Cardinal means by the word "couple." What is the end game for those in "couple" situations?
This is double-speak and how dare they think we are so "simple" as to not see through the ruse. As the parent of a middle-aged son living with his same-sex partner, I am gutted. My son doesn't stand a chance of reaching higher with this kind of false mercy being meted out from people who have been entrusted with propagating and proclaiming the Truth.
Best reply of all. This blessing might only help if followed by Jesus's words of "now go and sin no more." But I don't get the feeling the the people urging this blessing on us are at all wanting repentance to take place, just a feel good blessing. But I hope that the Holy Spirit can work through this. My prayers for you and your son.
Does Tucho have a stunningly cockeyed take on the African rejection of Fiducia Supplicans or what? Apparently, the pushback isn't due to the African clergy themselcves taking any issue with homosexual acts. Oh, no, not all. To listen to Tucho, one might guess that the African clerics would actually *love* to bless couples engaging in homosexual acts, but they just don't want to inadvertently out them to the civil authorities. That's the ticket.
I think that is how he plans to avoid schism. He will pretend that they are just waiting until it is safe in their countries. It appears that he may plan to call out the Germans and this theory would excuse any question of unequal treatment brought up by the Germans.
Anyone commenting ever in this thing can afford $60 a year (at least, or $150) or $5/month. And you get Startkng Seven for free. Luke is also amazing too! Seriously, if you comment and don't subscribe, you're cheap and cheating. I can say that bc I am cheap, but for this, it's worth it.
Thank you. Sometimes the law of the church can prevent an encounter with God. In the tenth chapter of Acts of the Apostles, the pagan Cornelius wants Peter to come visit him and his family. Peter has a vision from an angel that tells him despite the fact this is strictly forbidden in the religious law, he is not to call them unclean. He goes to visit them. And not only do they convert but Peter comes to a deeper understanding of Jesus by his forbidden encounter. For this reason, we should look to Peter and his successors when we become too concerned with the law.
You describe an incident where an adulterous woman was presented as an individual who was already condemned, and yes, Jesus showed mercy to her and told her to go and sin no more.
You are NOT describing an incident in which an adulterous woman who is holding hands with her lover approaches Jesus and wants Him to bless them as a couple even with a "generic blessing" for whatever is "good" about their relationship and wave them on, ignoring the rest. This, not your example, is akin to FS.
But it was a nice try.
You summarize the position of the DDF here: "The decision proffered in the DDF document, namely that individuals in an "ecclesially non-conforming" relationship can be blessed, assuming the blessing is not perceived or presented as a marital or similar blessing." To be honest, I've read a lot of opinions this week, and I have yet to see a single one where the writer disagrees with the idea that "individuals . . . can be blessed." The thing is, the DDF document does not say that individuals can be blessed. You are summarizing the 2023 DDF document as though it is the 2021 one, where "individuals" are not prevented from being blessed. Precisely what is at issue here is whether "couples" or "unions" can be blessed, not "individuals."
The rather clever theological argument, reiterated by the cardinal, says that "couples" exist as an entity that can be blessed, and that the blessing does not de facto condone their sinful relationship, since he takes pains to distinguish between "couples" and "unions." Whether this distinction is really possible is at least debatable.
The comments here at the pillar have been overwhelmingly ones of good will and charity. The same goes for the writing of the pillar staff. I think many of us are doubtful of some of these fine distinctions, which is why we are so upset about this document. I do think that the vast majority of people here probably agree that "individuals" can be blessed. I hope that helps.
I think we would all agree that the definition of marriage is a good one. But I can't agree with you about your hair-splitting point. The problem is that I can't think of a single other instance where the Church approves the idea of a priest blessing an entity whose existence is contrary to natural and divine law. I've seen a lot of things blessed by priests in my life. I also bless my food several times a day, I bless my children, I bless people who sneeze, etc. I can't think of a single case where the Church blesses something that is by its very nature ordered in a way contrary to God's law. It's not hair splitting. The two people in a divorced-and-civially-remarried union or the like might be wonderful people. They are certainly made in the image and likeness of God. And I have not seen anyone saying that they can't receive a blessing *as individuals*. But I know for a fact that their marriage/cohabitation is not ordered to the good and therefore probably shouldn't be blessed. I don't see how that's hairsplitting.
And I don't want this to come across as presumptuous or morally superior. I'm a sinner in need of God's grace and mercy. It seems to me that if the Church blesses something, she approves it, even if there is a document that tries to say otherwise.
I don't know if you have kids, but I do, and I've been thinking about this from their perspective today. When our priest blesses things, they are usually things that are good in and of themselves, even if they might also be persons who are in a state of sin. I just don't see how that can apply here. What would my kids think if they saw a priest blessing a couple who we knew to be living in an invalid marriage?
No desire for clickbait here. But I hope you can see that for many of us the concerns raised by the document (and the further explanations offered in this interview) are real.
Also, you write: “Especially offensive are those who misuse Scripture to justify the premise that those not in a state of grace cannot be given a blessing by a priest.” Can you point to a specific instance of someone arguing for this view? I honestly don’t think I’ve encountered that this week. I agree with you that this premise is completely wrong.
Let’s try it this way. Many of us think it’s actually FS that’s engaged in hair splitting, ie, between blessing a “couple” and a “union.”
If we stipulate that individuals can be blessed regardless of their moral or spiritual state, can you at least concede that those questioning the distinction between blessings of “couples” but not their “unions” may be doing so in good faith? I for one agree with Aristotle that the mark of an educated mind is the capacity to entertain an idea without agreeing with it. We are all trying to entertain the argument behind this distinction in FS. Can you entertain the arguments against that distinction and credit those positing those arguments with good faith?
Straw men. Cite your sources or give it up.
As others requested, please show name the individuals that you disagree with.
What precisely is a same-sex couple asking for in a blessing? To be strengthened in celibacy? Well then, OK!
If I understand you correctly then I agree with you. It seems to me the issue is primarily the words of the blessing? If two men or two women who you do not know to be in an irregular relationship approach you and ask for a blessing with no more explanation what blessing would you give? If the words were simple, “May Almighty God bless you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” then, to me, the only issue is whether that public act creates scandal if done in front of others who know the couple to be in a relationship. That is less of a worry to me than Fr James Martin blessing his known openly gay couple friends and having a photo of it in the NYT.
Yeah, I’m no expert in anything and probably haven’t spent 5 mins thinking about the precise wording of a blessing … but, of course, I’m glad you do. But your first paragraph answered my question. Thank you.
Honestly - I understood it that way! I did not read anything else into it but was simply agreeing with the sentiment that I’ve never really thought about the words that carefully. I really do appreciate you taking the time to answer my comment.
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.
Given how the German Ad Liminia visit went, I doubt that Cardinal Fernandez will have much sway over the Germans. Orthodox Bishops in Africa may be much more responsive to pressure from the DDF though. Perhaps at a loss of souls, from how the local Africans are already seeing this document as evidence of a loss of the Church's moral authority.
Whatever it means to ask for God's blessing, God Bless the Pillar and Cardinal Fernandez.
Thank you for this interview. Still, I wonder what his answer would be to the question "why did you think this proclamation is necessary?" If it really isn't teaching anything new as it doesn't seem to, and as Cardinal Fernandez confirms here, why issue it at all? Is the fallout on all sides really worth this simple affirmation of what so many of the faithful already knew to some degree? Was the clarification necessary, or even worth the damage it could do?
I was about to ask the same question.
Me too (from subscriber family member)
This is especially on my mind in view of Fr Martin's contention in an ABC news interview that previously he wasn't allowed by the Vatican to bless a gay couple at their backyard BBQ party and now he is. And I was like, what?
Because the backyard BBQ party was actually their wedding party . .and now it can seem like a wedding party with a blessing (at a simple backyard BBQ.)
As long as they don't have "wedding clothes" on.
It seems very clear to me that the main target of the document is the attempt of some bishops conferences to erect a liturgical quasi-marriage blessing for same sex couples. Whether it will stop them, it at least clearly lays out the Pope’s rejection of that possibility. As that movement has been building, it needs answered.
Pope Francis wants to uphold the ban while still seeming friendly and fatherly to same-sex acting people, and encouraging the Church to be friendly and motherly to them instead of coldly singling them out for scorn. That’s the whole story.
Excellent job! Can’t wait to fully read this. It was illuminating to read the actual document and in hope this adds to that
A classic from this pontificate; make a few statements that no one can disagree with and hide the revisionism in the middle. You can't bless a "couple" ( note: not two people but a couple) without blessing the union. If nothing has changed, there was no need for FS, with the publication of FS, everything has changed. And nothing concrete about Germany, note. Just more waffle. We've seen this before in the world and especially in the Anglican church - if you can make people think they are not being truly Christian by opposing a small "merciful" and "pastoral" step, then the door is opened to larger changes. Anyone who thinks this is not a significant move should study the recent history of the Anglican church.
"You can't bless a "couple" ( note: not two people but a couple) without blessing the union." Isn't this exactly what happens at the end of every mass, except that, instead of a couple, it's a couple of hundred?
As ou well know, that is a generic blessing. Blessing two individuals who are living in a same sex union, in the way James Martin did, is entirely different. This can only be interpreted by the faithful as an approval of their relationship. That's the definition of scandal, for me.
Cardinal Fernandez was talking about generic blessings too in what he was approving. So, again, contrary to what you said, you can bless a couple. In my comment, I was just arguing with that one point you said that I quoted. I'll argue with you again on the "this can only be interpreted ... as approval of the relationship," since I can interpret it differently. You're posturing here. Whether there will be scandal or not is off-topic to these quotes of yours, though I strongly agree with you that there will be abuse and scandal (tons of it, in fact). I don't believe His Eminence should be making this minute distinction at this time.
He was not speaking of generic blessings. There's an entire Book of Blessings that FS explicitly excluded from blessings for same sex couples, because that would be liturgical. Therefore the blessing would be specific to the couple.
Pilgrim, Filius dextris, "Son of the Right" seems to miss greatly the distinction and gets it "wrong" for all the reasons you mentioned. JMHO
Yes, a blessing at the end of Mass bestows a blessing on many people, all of whom are frail, imperfect, in need of mercy and grace, etc. Some of these people are probably dealing with actions in their life that are gravely sinful. Still the blessing on this collection as a congregation does contain an approval, of course the Church approves of all these people attending Mass and freely bestows her blessing on them. In no way does such a blessing condone every aspect of everyone’s life, precisely because what is being blessed is the thing that turns this collection of persons into a congregation of the faithful: the fact that they attended the Mass.
The blessing of a divorced-and-civilly-remarried couple is not like that at all. They are not being blessed because they happen to be standing next to each other and ask the priest simultaneously for a blessing. You can’t just tuck all the language about not condoning or not approving into a Vatican document and then simply proceed with a blessing of a group of two (and why stop at two?) people in an “irregular union” without at least seeming to condone that union. Who could blame someone for interpreting it that way? What would a child think, seeing such a blessing take place?
Yes, the couples who the document is talking about publicly self-identify as a "gay union". The document allows the priest to have private reservations, but the extent to which he articulates that good-versus-evil ('couple' vs 'union') distinction in the blessing, he is forcing the blessing on the couple.
So he is being thrown under the LGBT juggernaut.
Think you all are making way too much of this. He's blessing two people. That should be welcomed. Love the sinner not the sin. This is common sense. Give people the benefit of the doubt. Why do we need to throw around epithets like LGBT juggernaut. I think that's what he's referring to when he references ideology.
Thanks. But it is our/my position that distinguishes culpability of the sinner, from gravely wrong behaviour. We are only judging the latter, saying that the Church can never legitimately affirm that which contradicts the building of human communion. Your position seems to conflate judgement of culpability (which. with respect, is irrelevant to this discussion) with judgement about behaviour (which is basic to revelation and evangelisation). Prominent aspects of the LGBT movement similarly conflate, for they treat as awful sinners anyone who dares to call same-sex sexual activity a sin.
And why do you not see the dilemma...oh, you're probably not a priest, so it won't be your problem.
Very easy for to decide what a cleric should do. A priest is being asked not to bless two individuals at the same time, he is being asked to bless a couple as a couple.
There is such a thing as a "conscience" when it is well formed this take precedence over, "Just do it!"
The reality is no gay couple is going to ask for a “ blessing” unless the priest understands they are seeking a blessing of the union. Why else would they ask?
yes indeed, unless they want to move away from it, and that is the beginning of not being a union and repentance - very different from wat is being proposed here.
Good gosh, if you can't see the difference between blessing a congregation, with people in all sorts of situations and two people of the same sex or in an "irregular union" asking for a blessing as a couple there is no point in continuing a conversation.
I don’t think we are disagreeing about that. My point was that they are not remotely alike.
Gotcha, thanks…Blessed Nativity!
I went to a colleague's "wedding" in 1990 in a picture postcard ancient church on the south edge of Oxford. I wondered how on earth the Anglican vicar was going to handle it as the bride was divorced. You had to be pretty alert to recognise that it was NOT, repeat NOT, a wedding. The bride came up the aisle dressed in full flowing white gown on her Dad's arm, etc. There were just four weasel words in the service which gave it away: Bless their marriage, "already recognised by law". They had already got legally hitched at the registry office. The never ending disintegration of the Anglican communion offers little hope to the serpent tongued compromisers.
This was a softball interview, and yet still one could argue he didn't do a good job swinging.
Also implying African Catholics would be Europeans if the law was different is... probably just going to annoy those same bishops more
Oh, for a rebuttal question.
Thank you Edgar for providing us this interview and to Cardinal Fernández to granting it to the Pillar.
I am still left with the question why the word "couple" was so conspicuously used. In colloquial English this word connotes that the two individuals are currently having (as far too many do outside of matrimonial bonds these days), or will have in the future (as in a courting couple discerning marriage), sexual relations. This intrinsically links the word "couple" with the word "union", be that union permanent or temporary, to a great many English speakers.
Now, I'm not sure if this is a cultural or linguistic difference between the good Cardinal and those who are having trouble parsing this document. He seems keen to insist on separating the words "couple" and "union" in a way that feels weirdly irrational to readers like myself. Because of this relationship between the terms, I am having a very hard time understanding why the DDF didn't use a word that doesn't have this link, like the word "pair."
It would make more sense, to me, to say that it is pastorally beneficial to bless a pair that they may "ask God to grant them health, peace, prosperity." This would have better separated the idea that the relationship need not have necessarily have a current sexual component when, "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." Furthermore, it would divorce the connection that the blessing would, even by accident, validate the "union" shared.
At this point, there needs to be serious work to explain in detail how the words "couple" and "union" can be theologically separated in a way that makes sense to English speakers. Or the document needs to be amended so that the word "couple" is replaced with a word or phrase that better denotes the DDF's understanding of just who or what is receiving the pastoral blessing.
I'm not sure that it's only an issue of English translation. I'm also not sure that use of the word "pair" would have resolved many Catholic's concerns.
To take a different example: What if a cannibal asked a priest to bless a rack of barbecued human ribs, served with a side of potatoes? Personally, I would have grave concerns if the priest blessed it as a "meal" or as a "dish" or as "food." If the ingredients truly are unknown to the priest, that's one thing. But once the irregular ingredients are known, I don't think it can be blessed in that way. I don't think it would change anything to know that the priest is only asking God to grant the cannibal good health, or that the priest is only focused on the taters. Any blessing of it *as* a meal would seem to be a validation of the cannibalism itself.
Oh such a great analogy here.
yes .. or blessing an Israeli air-force squadron while privately holding to Just War principles (e.g. of Double Effect). The extent to which the priest articulates the document's concept of "couple" he is contradicting the couple's public self-identification as a gay union. He either blesses disorder or disorders the blessing.
So if two gay men asked a priest for a blessing separately it'd be OK, because they're not a "couple"? Isn't this just semantics? Why does it matter either way? That's how I read his response. It's very clear.
Yes, in the same way that any of us (all of whom are sinners) could ask for a blessing.
The analogy was meant to separate the issue from romantic relationships, but I think the same distinction could be found in other irregular relationships. A married man and his mistress with whom he is having an affair can each ask for a blessing. But that is different from them asking for a blessing *as* a couple.
Key difference for me is that our individual identity/nature is always something good but the way in which this identity is enhanced by a publicly self-identifying "gay couple" is disordered. The person presented is still fundamentally good, the union presented is intrinsically disordered.
Cardinal Fernandez, my question is this. We have been learning about synodality for the years. We participated in consultations of the laity and our bishops went to Rome. FS does not reference synodality, or even the bishops, virtually all the references are to Francis. Why should we bother with synodality when the innovations are issued by the supreme pontiff, and we are are all expected to contemplate and obey what he says rather that what synodality says?
Sorry. I still don’t get the point of all of this unless that’s the point.
Maybe it's just me...maybe I lack the capacity to "read serenely and without ideological prejudices," but when I read this: "Couples are blessed. The union is not blessed, for the reasons that the declaration repeatedly explains about the true meaning of Christian marriage and sexual relations," I wonder what the Cardinal means by the word "couple." What is the end game for those in "couple" situations?
This is double-speak and how dare they think we are so "simple" as to not see through the ruse. As the parent of a middle-aged son living with his same-sex partner, I am gutted. My son doesn't stand a chance of reaching higher with this kind of false mercy being meted out from people who have been entrusted with propagating and proclaiming the Truth.
Come, Lord Jesus.
Best reply of all. This blessing might only help if followed by Jesus's words of "now go and sin no more." But I don't get the feeling the the people urging this blessing on us are at all wanting repentance to take place, just a feel good blessing. But I hope that the Holy Spirit can work through this. My prayers for you and your son.
Does Tucho have a stunningly cockeyed take on the African rejection of Fiducia Supplicans or what? Apparently, the pushback isn't due to the African clergy themselcves taking any issue with homosexual acts. Oh, no, not all. To listen to Tucho, one might guess that the African clerics would actually *love* to bless couples engaging in homosexual acts, but they just don't want to inadvertently out them to the civil authorities. That's the ticket.
I think that is how he plans to avoid schism. He will pretend that they are just waiting until it is safe in their countries. It appears that he may plan to call out the Germans and this theory would excuse any question of unequal treatment brought up by the Germans.
Great interview!!
Great work by The Pillar. Thank you. This got me to finally subscribe.
About time too! 😂
Anyone commenting ever in this thing can afford $60 a year (at least, or $150) or $5/month. And you get Startkng Seven for free. Luke is also amazing too! Seriously, if you comment and don't subscribe, you're cheap and cheating. I can say that bc I am cheap, but for this, it's worth it.
Thank you so much! May all the angels sing for you-all at the Pillar! My Christmas will be so much brighter because of your work!!