Die ersten beiden Absätze Ihres Kommentars sind schlecht durchdacht.
Das sind überhaupt keine starken Argumente, aber weil ich ein dummer Amerikaner bin und kein Deutsch spreche, sollte ich nicht versuchen, es im Detail zu erklären.
Did the pope issue it, or did the DDF? I thought the pope's signature was absent, whatever his oral comments may have been. I assume that limits its magisterial weight, regardless if whether the DDF chooses to call it a "declaration" and give it a Latin title or whether they choose to publish it as a response to dubia. But there has been a lot of writing on this, and I can't bring myself to read the document directly to check, so perhaps I am incorrect on that detail. All the DDF documents lose me lately in their long introductions where they pat themselves on the back for having such a shepherd's heart.
The pope's signature is NOT absent, even though the document is written and issued by the DDF. He signed at the bottom of the document: Ex Audientia Die 18 December 2023 Francis.
Both the Pope and the DDF are ordinary organs of the Magisterium. Making a distinction who issued it is needlessly splitting hairs, especially if Francis' name is attached to FS
The pope has the capability of exercising an extraordinary magisterium which the DDF does not. That's why I'm drawing this distinction. This is scandalous, but it does not, in fact, strike at infallibility and produce equally authoritative, normative, definitive statements of equal weight, even if the document clearly promotes teaching which is blatantly opposed to Scripture and our constant and robust Tradition on the topic.
Do you have a reference that defines the magisterium exercised by the DDF? Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 discuss the magisterium of the pope individually and of the college of bishops speaking as a unified body, but I'm not aware of a statement that requires me to ascribe authority to the DDF. I believe the CDF wrote some explanatory document in the recent past trying to give itself some level of authority, but I can't remember the name of that document at the moment to see how strong of a chink it can put into my argument here.
Really, your comment demonstrates the culvert confusion Card. Mueller points out. The article, in a logical and sequential way, points out the problems with FS (which itself ran to, what, 5,000 words?). The need for such a detailed response rose from the detailed and confusing document itself.
It is, perhaps, intellectually dishonest to dismiss with a derogatory word such a well-reasoned and -articulated response to a document that, at both first glance and upon deeper reflection, is neither.
I used the word screed because I found it tedious. Tedious because it smells of fear. Fear of what? Bestowing pastoral blessings on anyone who asks? If people are disingenuous in requesting the blessing, then they are not truly blessed. Only God knows their true hearts.
The question seems to be are we going to be a Church that the person giving the blessing is going to be the judge of the worthiness of the person requesting the blessing, or are we going to be the Church that seeks in great faith that this is a person who is suffering in some way and seeks to be helped by God?
Carrot or stick? Cardinal Muller seems to prefer the stick. It is not love to deny a suffering person a blessing.
How many people do you believe are moping around outside the Church, sad because the Church won’t affirm through the sacramental of a blessing that God loves them?
More importantly: what prevented *anyone* from walking up to *any* cleric and requesting a blessing?
I’ll make it easy: nothing did. Not one thing.
What has changed with this document?
In one way… nothing. Couldn’t bless sin on December 17, can’t bless sin on December 24.
In another way…lots. Because on December 17, everybody (including “couples in irregular situations”) knew that their irregular situation was a barrier to union with God (because it is sinful) and the Church (because if it was public sin, celebrated sin, then it would cause scandal). Today, ¿quién sabe? The DDC spent 50 paragraphs both explaining something that didn’t need it, and sowing confusion.
And if Cardinal Mueller was “afraid” of anything (which I doubt), it was precisely the confusion that has been apparent the last week.
I’m sure Card Mueller would apologize for your finding his writing “tedious”. Blessing “couples in irregular situations” will not relieve the suffering that comes from their *sin*, and it’s unkind on our part IMHO to pretend that it will. Any suffering we experience from our sin is finally relieved through sacramental confession and absolution.
A blessing is like an ice pack for a broken leg: it will make it stop hurting for a while, but unless the break is set, cast, and allowed to heal, the ice is only a temporary, fell-better measure. The pain will inevitably come back, and worse.
Not when your leg is broken. It is a temporary relief for what is a debilitating (and in some cases, life-threatening) injury.
If you truly know people who are now going to be aided in their quest for holiness by receiving a blessing with their same-sex partner, or with their cohabiting partner, I’m all for it.
But I don’t think that’s the goal here (because in one way there is nothing new in FS). I have no more ability or permission to bless folks than I had on 12/17.
In another way, *everything* has changed, because of the confusion introduced here.
160 intelligent comments later, FS has demonstrated its ability to confuse an issue that didn’t need confusion. (Okay, 157 intelligent plus my three).
What was the point of 2 years walking together if declarations are then made on the basis of the magisterium of Francis? Why did we all waste our time?
It was never about walking "together." It was about including the laity in order to rig votes and get the desired outcome. That's why it is also being conducted in two parts. You need to count votes the first time, so you can more effectively rig things the next time.
Not that such a mind requires my agreement, but I agree that this whole thing hinges on whether the individuals or the union itself is blessed.
Granted, I've only read through FS once, but I do not remember any language saying the union could be blessed, just people in such a union. FS even quotes and reaffirms the 2021 declaration.
Since the Cardinal only uses paragraph citations rather than quotes, does anyone know what specific language he is responding to that suggests the union itself can be blessed?
The declaration speaks of “couples,” which in the cardinal’s argument here is indistinguishable from “unions,” since it is the relationship simulating the conjugal union that makes a gathering of two persons into a couple. Here is the quotation from FS: “Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex...”
Muller makes the bare assertion that "what defines a couple as couple is precisely their being a union." However, he never bothers to define what consitutes a "union" is in the eyes of the Church (which must be something different from the "union" She speaks of in the sacrament of marriage; otherwise it would be impossible to speak of a "union" existing at all!). Furthermore, if what consitutes a "couple" is their participating in a "union", what are we to make of two people who have no sexual relations, or of two people who have not secured any form of civil union from the government? If two same-sex individuals who were romantically involved (but had no sexual relations or civil union) approached for a blessing, would Muller say their relationship *can* be blessed because there is *no* "union" between them? Or is a "union" formed merely by any mutual action toward a romantic interest between two persons? Whatever it is Muller means by a "union", it seems too narrow to be the all-powerful constitutive element of what is commonly called a "couple".
I think you are conflating "couple" and "pair" when referring to a group of two human individuals as they are used as nouns within english.
Think of how people are described and if the word "couple" or "pair" is used within a situation. I would posit that "couple" is typically used dominantly for two human individuals that have a romantic interest rather than a like-type connection.
1. Two males are put together on a 2 vs 2 basketball game: They are a pair, not a couple.
2. A group of heterogeneous people are separated into groups of two. They are referred to as pairs.
3. Two best friends with non-romantic feelings (phileo NOT eros) are always seen together and do many of the same activities. "That pair is always getting into trouble.
4. Two individuals are seen canoodling in a corner. "That couple should be more circumspect so not to give scandal."
In the English language, I can't think of a situation where "couple" would be used normally/correctly when a romantic connection is not implied.
From that you can conclude two things about why there is so much discussion and disagreement about this document:
1. The document was translated improperly to English.
2. Cardinal Muller is correct and the document is self-contradictory in that it indicates (in agreement with the 2021 declaration) that the couple can't be blessed (due to the romantic connotations are inherent with the word
"couple"), but also that the couple can be blessed for pastoral reasons.
I'm not sure why you are accusing me of conflation; I agree that "couple" generally indicates there exists an acted-upon romantic interest between two people.
However, that does not adress Muller's argument that a "couple" is constituted by the existance of a "union" between the two persons. Certainly, this assertion does not match up with common parlance, where two dating individuals are often called a "couple". If Muller wants to limit the idea of a "couple" to only those relationship in which there is a "union", that's fine. However, he is then stuck with the situation where a two people in a same-sex dating relationship approach for a blessing when there exists no "union" between them. Either Muller must admit that they can be blessed because there is no union between them, or Muller must admit that the idea of a "union" is not actually doing the work in his analysis. Muller's argument is therefore incorrect in both cases. The third option is that a "union" is formed whenever two people act upon romantic interest; however, this leads to rather absurd conclusions, such as two 12-year-olds have formed a "union" by going on a few dates. That's an option, strictly speaking, but I don't think anyone really wants to make that argument.
Now, I am open to the suggestion that the translation is not very good. I tend to think translation is a bigger problem that most people realize. However, FS takes pains to distinguish between unions and couples (as well as couples being distinct from individuals, but that is more implicit). So, I would want to see specific suggestions as to what is being translated poorly.
The document is not self-contradictory insofar as it says that "unions" cannot be blessed, but that "couples" can receive certain kinds of blessing under certain circumstances following certain guidelines. This is only a contradition if you collapse the definitions of "couple" and "union", as Muller argues, such that a couple always has a union (and argue that a couple cannot be blessed in any way apart from the union they share, but that is a subsequent hurdle for Muller). However, this definitional collapse leads to the above-mentioned problems, making this an untenable argument.
But dating is oriented towards marriage and is a transitional stage. A man and a woman may date now to determine if they will marry later. It's mostly a novelty that people today just sort of hang around together forever and never get married. We're also kidding ourselves if we think the people doing that are chaste. For that reason alone, though I think there are many others, we shouldn't be encouraging these relationships as normative.
These terms don't seem quite so difficult to me. The Church is very clear about what constitutes a marriage, of course. And the two persons so united constitute a married "couple." A man and a woman who are not married but who may be "romantically involved" also constitute a couple of sorts, and this may either be a chaste relationship or not but it would only be praiseworthy if it were geared toward the possibility of marriage. The specific actions that may define two such people as a couple rather than merely as two "friends" vary from place to place. But whatever the kind of bond ("union") that unites them, the cases in question in FS are self-selecting, in the most straightforward reading. What is at issue is that a couple presents itself to the priest *as a couple,* not merely as a pair of friends. In the case of divorced-and-civilly-remarried people or same-sex couples, it is difficult to see how one could bless this "couple"-hood without at the same time blessing a "union" that is contrary to natural and divine law. It doesn't really matter how we choose to define "union."
You speak of "two same-sex individuals who were romantically involved (but had no sexual relations or civil union)." I don't really know what that would mean, but it seems clear that two such persons seeking to be blessed as a couple would certainly have a "union" of sorts precisely because they are asking to be blessed *as a couple.* And this union or bond is what makes them a "couple" rather than just a "couple of people."
"In the case of divorced-and-civilly-remarried people or same-sex couples, it is difficult to see how one could bless this "couple"-hood without at the same time blessing a "union" that is contrary to natural and divine law."
Is it difficult? As FS proposes, such a blessing imparts "actual graces" (ie the assistance to do good and avoid evil) such that "human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel" (FS 31). What is fidelity to the gospel according to FS (FS 5: " This is also the understanding of marriage that is offered by the Gospel")? That marriage a is “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children” (FS 4) ... "it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning." (FS 4) Thus according to FS, the blessing is to impart graces that aid the couple in living accourding to the natural and divine law in relation to one another. FS then continues that the blessing is that "they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties", which from the preceding clearly includes their illicit union, and that "they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love ", which from the preceding means living according to the Gospel teaching on mariage and sexuality. As a right order of the relationship between the two people according to the Gospel inherently involves the*relationship* between, it is right and proper to bless that relationship. Doing so in no way legimates their illict couple-hood (FS 31, 34, 40), but rather orders their relationship *away* from their illicit couple-hood (which is evil) and toward the divine plan for their relationship (which is good).
In other words, FS has contemplated this issue and given clear instructions as to what is an is not being strengthened, weakened, legimated, approved, etc. FS teaches that the union between persons is not being legimated by such a blessing, but rather that the relationship between persons is being granted graces to live according to the natural and divine law for their relationship. Certainly, FS could state this more clearly, but it's all there in the document.
I am amazed at the knowledge and analytical capabilities of the Plilar readers as demonstrated in the above comments. But taken together it is all pedantic. Did the Pope intend for a Church blessing be bestowed on a pair or a union. ? Obviously at this point in the last days of his Papacy he does not care about such niceties . He simply wanted to move the Church towards inclusion of the LGBT community. I have no idea the difference this and any further attempts at inclusion will make in the future of the Church. Most of the LGBT community has, to the extent they wish to be part of an organized religion , left the Church. And I do not see any non Catholic LGBT members wanting to join. The only thing that makes this topic viable is the Fr. Jim Martin and others trying to shoe horn the LGBT community into the Church. Why does any LGBT member want to join an organization that finds them intrinsically disordered and living in a constant state of sin. Because they believe that their eternal salvation is jeopardized unless the Church fully recognizes their personhood. ? What grace filled person would ever suggest much less mean that?
Remember that vast numbers of the hierarchy and priests are homosexuals. Many are also narcissists and egomaniacs. Believe me when I tell you that changing doctrine and practice just for their own gratification is not beneath them. They care not for souls, for families, or for Christ. They care for their own twisted hearts.
🫤 That’s a logical fallacy (hasty generalization), there probably are members of the hierarchy who are exactly what you describe. But to describe them as “vast numbers” in order to strengthen your argument isn’t correct.
You may be correct that some of those promoting this letter are as you describe. But that isn’t what’s going on (there are over a billion Catholics, and what, 414,000 priests total? 33/100 of 1%
The “vast numbers” aren’t the issue. It’s their placement in the hierarchy thats at issue.
For anyone else looking for this, here is the full context (h/t @Charles Weaver):
"31. Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex, the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage. In such cases, a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit. These forms of blessing express a supplication that God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his Spirit—what classical theology calls “actual grace”—so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love."
I mean, my interpretation of this is almost that I /have/ to pray that they may be "freed from their imperfections and frailties" which would obviously include the grave sin of non-marital sexual relations. I am always happy to say that prayer with those who request it.
In other words, a blessing that sounds something like "May God bless you with the grace of chastity." But how many same-sex couples or "remarried" divorcees would actually welcome such a challenging blessing? If they did indeed welcome it, then by all means they should receive it. But those are not the sort of folks that Fr. James Martin wants to parade in The New York Times, is it?
Although it’s unfair to say I’ve surveyed the entire United States, I’m generally disappointed that theology tends to be taught to our priests here from a disciplinary standpoint, and the richness and sometimes openness of truths are eliminated in favor of black/white clarity. In some ways I’m grateful our contribution to the overall Church is canon law, but it has also permeated and clouded the theology framework here in a way that few countries understand. The disciplinarians abroad love our defense of truth and gravitate toward America for a reason— for better and worse. Respectfully, to say it hinges on that question alone misses nearly all of the Theology.
A couple of the dozens of Theology Questions you could start with: in what ways, if any, does the particular couple approaching a parish do so for help with a concrete moral judgement on their peculiarities as created by God?
To what extent, if any, does the couple asking for help appear open to the positive properties of fecondità (fruitfulness) and complementarietà? [and yes, when we boil the teaching into a bullet point format for catechism or parish homilies we tend to simplify it as one man/one woman open to life. But the teaching is actually so much deeper]
Are they acting on tendencies that are natural, or what we historically understood to be hedonistic and selfish (expressed in English as a choice, a rebellion against nature, and in previous centuries a crime).
Dan: You're saying quite a bit here, but I will make one point of disagreement. I do not believe that moral law and canon law are opposed, nor are they simply "disciplinary" as you imply. As I often explain when teaching, biblical law, liturgical norms, moral law and canon law have one primary goal: to bring about order, happiness, and salvation to the Church. Too often - even at the highest levels - there seems to only be a negative view or "disciplinary motive" of such law.
I’ll join you in asserting the absolute necessity of the disciplinary approach. There was a pretty well documented divorce of sorts in academic theology between the canonists and theologians a few hundred years back. They overall are supposed to complement and balance one another out. It continues to be apparent that the Germans, for example, lack credible discipline in how they teach. On the other hand, on the whole, over here in the USA the formation has gone too far the other direction. The various academic fields need to integrate in a way that sharpens, balances eachother out, and helps the other mature.
Regarding the implication that Dan makes regarding seminary formation here in the US seems not only faulty but also ignorant.
On what does he base his conclusions about teaching theology from only a "disciplinary" point or view.
Has he recently made of tour of seminaries and sat in for a semester in classes?
It sounds like his perceptions of priests formed here is without any empirical or comprehensive data.
When one is a pastor decisions have to be made in accordance with all aspects of what one is dealing with.
Certainly the couple should be primary, then the a priest needs to try to understand the motivation for the blessing, what the couple believe results from the blessing and then what a blessing might imply or seem to imply. The Faith of the Church must also be a big part of a decision on what the priest thinks he is doing and how much scandal might be given.
The Declaration clearly seems to imply that it contains new rules (opps, that's disciplinary), a new theology and innovations that are inconsistent with the Tradition of the Church.
The new rules, theology and innovations of the Declaration cannot be seen light of the perennial and consistent Faith of the Church.
Many Catholics might wish to replace feelings with spiritual and theological realities.
It seems to me that if you are blessing a couple who request a blessing they are not presenting themselves not as individuals but a couple...two people asking for a blessing together not only implies that said couple is in a union but that they want a blessing for the union.
The gobbledygook in the Declaration is confused and confusing. Papal sophistry.
Two people asking for a blessing together does not at all imply that there is any sort of union or romantic relationship between them.
I was thinking about this recently, in the context of my FSSP parish, and the Phillipinos at my mother's parish. Both groups are far more likely to ask for blessings from priests for small things or just because than the typical American parish. I have personally been blessed in a parking lot with another person of the same sex in the context of car trouble, by someone who I suspect would die before blessing a same-sex union. There was no attempt to bless each of us individually, and no need to. In part because there is so much more blessing going on, and in part because we know our priests, no one there would have made any assumptions about an immoral relationship even if they didn't know us.
So I think there has to be quite a bit more going on than a blessing of two people of the same sex simultaneously. The German Bishop Wiesemann's letter from February, from what I can make out through google translate, does go well beyond this, with the intention of specifically addressing the relationship between the two people and asking God to strengthen various good-sounding things in it, like "love, commitment and mutual responsibility". Others seem to be going down the same lines. Likely they will employ phrases from FS like "In a brief prayer preceding this spontaneous blessing, the ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance—but also God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely." Which nicely specifies the good things, and leaves ambiguous that "fulfill his will" even partially, requires repentance and chastity.
I think FS is actually easier to interpret in an orthodox manner than some other things the Pope has said, but it left plenty of room for scandalous blessings.
Perhaps I misinterpreted when you said "two people asking for a blessing together not only implies that said couple is in a union but that they want a blessing for the union". But my intent was to provide an example of two people asking for a blessing that had no implication that they were a couple or in a union.
With all due respect to His Eminence, it is exceptionally and expressly clear from the document itself that it is in fact simply referring to the (b) type blessings he discusses, and also exceptionally and expressly clear that its goal is not to propose an entirely new category of blessings, but simply to clarify and regulate and limit the application of such already-envisioned blessings to particular hard cases. The text also very clearly and express that such blessings should not be blessings or legitimations of the sexual relationship or activities of the persons blessed, but merely a blessing of the persons themselves--which His Eminence acknowledges, but regards as contradictory because, apparently, blessing two people together and/or referring to these two people as a "couple" (a term which means "two people") intrinsically involves also blessing their sexual activities regardless of the intentions of the one giving the blessing. If accurate this claim would appear to have vast implications.
The text is not beyond challenge and criticism, but it does not speak well of the basic reading comprehension skills of Catholic media figures that they seem unable to attack it without simply ignoring or seeming unaware of the plain statements of the text itself.
But I hear and actually see on line that some prominent Catholic priests are already celebrating this document and gleefully blessing "couples" publicly as if it is something new.
Admittedly I am already punch drunk reading about FS and the countless interpretations. But are there more priests, apart from Father James Martin, who have already spontaneously celebrated such unions (in the company of a photographer who happened to spontaneously drop in) under the justification provided by FS?
Should have been singular "priest" for now, at least in the US. And can you call it spontaneous if the New York Times just happens to be there? And NPR has a program with interviews of LGBT folks excited about the new blessing for them. No scandal here.
In the usual way of thinking about human relationships, “couple” means much more than simply “two people.” The declaration seems to speak of such entities as having more significance than just as a collection of two persons. For instance, it would never be in question to bless a mother and child, but nobody would call those two persons a “couple.” The newly proposed blessings, in apparent contradiction to the previous ruling from 2021 and indeed the entire Catholic tradition, can certainly be read in the way Cdl. Müller does so here.
The text basically says that such blessings can be done as long as they doesn't cause scandal, but it's like saying that murder is permitted as long as it doesn't result in a death.
I do believe that FS was intended to refer to type "b" blessings. But I disagree that it is "exceptionally and expressly clear" from the text.
FS speaks to "blessing couples in irregular situations" when the blessing is "requested by a couple in an irregular situation." The term "couple" may refer simply to "two people" - but the context of the entire document (especially the concern for scandal and confusion with a civil union or wedding) makes it clear that the term "couple" here is intended to refer to two people in a romantic relationship. By referring to blessings *of" those couples and blessings *for* those couples, the text of FS is open to the interpretation that persons in an irregular romantic relationship can still be blessed *as* a couple. Personally, I do not see how a priest could bless two people *as* a couple without validating the relationship in some way. It seems to me that most attempts to rationalize it away only succeed because most Catholics do not find most "irregular situations" to be morally wrong anymore. But I hope that most priests would see how those attempts fall short if a brother and sister in a romantic relationship ever asked to be blessed *as* a couple.
If the intent of FS is (as I believe) to refer only to type "b" blessings, then I think it could have been (and should been) much clearer. It seems that even a small change, like "blessing a person who is in an irregular romantic relationship," could have gone a long way to clarifying the issue.
If the text were so obviously perfectly clear and unobjectionable why is there such an uproar over it? Do we as a Church have a basic inability to understand simple and straightforward things?
Do you think that perhaps it might be you who are unable to see the doctrinal and practical contradictions at the center of the document instead of virtually every one else seeing something that isn't there?
An excellent, clearly defined point about the nature of what is occurring via the priesthood itself. We are left with either the blasphemy of an ordained priest calling down God’s grace onto something that by its nature (any sort of sexual relationship outside of valid sacramental marriage) rejects God or the heresy of some sort of sacramental modalism which pretends the permanent mark of ordination on the priest’s soul can somehow be laid aside at convenience while he does XYZ as a regular Joe.
Many thanks to the Pillar for publishing this essay. The cardinal eloquently addresses many concerns that many faithful people of good will have harbored the last few days.
What a difference (in style, substance, and clarity) between this essay and the declaration itself!
Usually, stuff coming out of Rome has been able to be nuanced somewhat easily into a hermaneutic of continuity. But Fiducia Supplicans is flagrant: I see some prominent online Catholic apologists and content creators trying to make defenses of this... but it's completely undermined when all the bishops are like "yes, this is in fact exactly what it looks like - it's a blessing for open homosexual relationships and unions."
Some dioceses (like those in the developing world) are spurning this as inadmissable, others (like the Germans/Belgians, who are wrong about literally everything else btw) are lauding this and saying "yes, this is exactly what we're looking for and we'll be publishing the prayers we want everyone to pray." Whether they agree with FS or disagree, nobody's sugar-coating it and saying the spade-looking thing is somehow not a spade.
I feel like if someone asks me about it, to say that it's anything other than an official endorsement of active homosexual unions vis-a-vis blessings, then I look like the "Man Behind the Curtain" in the Wizard of Oz; the reality is clear, and I look like a sad buffoon trying to convince them otherwise.
I wouldn't go that far. It does clearly state the Church's teaching on marriage amd that homosexual sexual relations are objectively inadmissable.
Cardinal Mueller's take is far more accurate - the document is internally inconsistent, by being equivocal on the meaning of "blessing".
So we can say that the document does not contradict the faith-as-revealed (it is nearly impossible to find a dogmatic statement on blessings, which is the matter being inconsistently discussed), but also provides confusion and not clarity in that which is still under discussion.
And this is all the more reason that to say that “no further clarification is coming” is so problematic. It makes the whole declaration read as a poorly thought-out “pastoral” solution in desperate search of a theological justification.
Yes, the "Catechism Death Penalty" question is HUGE, and I'm surprised no one really takes it seriously anymore. Whenever the question of the Pope contradicting teaching comes up, I'm always told "no, because you need x and y and z criteria all to be present for that to happen"... and then all those criteria are met for the catechism update.
1) the catechism is an official document of the Magisterium that holds significant magisterial weight, because it summates all the beliefs of the Church - what is in the Catechism is what the Church believes and teaches. It is also not necessary for the document to be infallible (a term which actually refers to persons, not documents) nor inerrant (which we only believe about Scripture, even the conciliar documents of Nicea and Vatican II are not "inerrant" in the proper sense).
2) the old version of par. 2267 states clearly that the Church teaches that the death penalty is not an intrinsic moral evil, and that under prudent circumstances is morally permissable.
3) the new version of par. 2267, officially promulgated by the Pope himself, does the following: explicitly acknowledges the previous teaching that existed beforehand; explicitly states that something now in our day is changing; explicitly declares the death penalty an intrinsic moral evil (because it is "inadmissable," with no qualifiers, which means it is always and everywhere wrong to do and cannot be carried out regardless of circumstance, i.e. intrinsic); explicitly states that this teaching comes from Divine Revelation and the Gospel itself, and so is a matter of faith and morals that demands religious assent of intellect and will; universally binds the Church to this teaching so much so that it exhorts the Church to actively abolish the practice universally in all civil practice.
That's literally all the criteria necessary for a contradiction of teaching on matters of faith and morals - a teaching so fundamental, btw, that it borders on a fundamental aspect of human dignity and the natural law.
I have seen many defenses of the update, and none can properly tackle this approach.
This is my struggle with FS and I had no idea the Rubicon had already been crossed, so to speak. I never knew until your comments that the CCC had changed language on the death penalty.
What mechanism has the Church for dealing with this and what has been demonstrated through history? Honorius is the only example that comes to my mind, but I’m not the world’s most thorough student of history and don’t know if that is actually the right example for where we find ourselves now.
I think it goes back even farther. With the dismantling of the Mass in the 60s, and the changes that were made even though scripture teaches them and they were perennial in Catholic life, there is a sense that any teaching is up for grabs if it can be shown to be "historical" therefore we do not have to take it literally. Fernandez states this in an interview from July of this year. He makes the strange leap that because women no longer veil at Mass...we may eventually change our belief about homosexuality. (see I Cor. 11:11-16)
To say it is inadmissible means one cannot be allowed to do it. Obviously, this carries a moral weight - if something cannot be allowed, it’s because doing it is bad/wrong/etc. to do.
The updated language in CCC not only teaches that the death penalty is “inadmissible” (read: “wrong/bad to do”), but also does not place any qualifiers on it whatsoever (CCC could have said “it is inadmissible in our day when xyz criteria are met…” but doesn’t). Always and everywhere, in every circumstance, *by the light of the Gospel*, it is ALWAYS wrong.
What naturally results, then, is “inadmissible” = “intrinsic moral evil”
Pussyfooting around “the definition of inadmissible” to say “oh that doesn’t mean it’s wrong! It just can’t be allowed no matter what” makes no sense and does not sit with how the Church has always approached these ways of defining matters.
First, if it is “pussyfooting” to maintain that words mean what they mean...then that actually has a long tradition in the Church.
Secondly, to imply that inadmissible was said without qualifiers is factually incorrect. CCC 2267 does almost nothing BUT offer qualifiers. It talks about “increasing awareness,” more effective penal systems, and “new understandings.” So if any of those proves to be wrong, conclusions based on them would also be wrong.
And the inadmissibility of the death penalty is a direct consequence of those arguments.
You’re not describing qualifiers, and what you listed are not qualifiers. Qualifiers are conditions that make something possible “xyz is ok *IF* abc conditions are fulfilled.”
What you’re describing is more like… a pedagogy, I guess?
Yes... because "inadmissable" is not technically an accepted theological term, the interpretation that it is prudentially wrong from this point forward, due to our increased modern capabilities and understanding of human dignity, is the only way I've found that doesn't contradict past teaching.
The catechism didn't say that wherever we have the capability to protect society without executions, and an understanding of human dignity, we shouldn't execute people. After talking about how we have those capabilities and understanding, it said "Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide."
The trouble is, there are plenty of places in the modern world that have thoroughly ineffective penal systems, and other places whose penal systems are becoming far less effective, whether from an increase in poverty or from a lack of enforcement, or from the crime simply not being considered to be that bad anymore (e.g., 6 months parole for raping an unconscious woman). If the death penalty is now prudentially inadmissable everywhere in the world, even those places where there is no running water or electricity, and people have legitimate concerns about starving to death from poverty, and funding for prisons is rather slim, and where ancient Rome had a more stable society, then when and where has it been prudentially admissible?
There's no way to make this passage helpful. Either "the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide." doesn't actually mean worldwide, but only some places in the world, or doesn't actually mean inadmissable, but only sometimes inadmissable, or it doesn't actually mean "abolition", but only decrease, or it doesn't actually mean that the Church teaches this.
I simply ignored the update. I once read about a prison in Mexico where the guards armed the prisoners every evening and sent them to kill people. So in cases like that one either kills the killers or allows more innocents to be murdered. Granted that's not a common situation but it does happen and in that case executions are necessary for the common good.
You're almost entirely correct. The only argument I'd make that doesn't open a whole other can of worms is how we know the Catechism mow claims the death penalty is an intrinsic and grave evil.
Inadmissible doesn't mean anything theologically however an attack on human dignity does. The claim that the death penalty is such would make God Himself guilty of mortal sin.
linking "inadmissable" to "because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the human person" mandates the understanding that it's an intrinsic grave moral evil, because the inherent dignity of the human person does not change no matter the circumstance.
Correct and that would make God Himself guilty of mortal sin. Toucho had the same error in his interview with The Pillar where he offhandedly mentioned that the death penalty for sodomy is an attack on human dignity.
There's a difference between thinking and scheming, and it's on full display now in the way Fiducia supplicans is being received by some (e.g., see article in NY Times about J. Martin).
"This leads to a second observation: it is hazardous to invent new terms that go against the traditional usage of language. Such procedure can give rise to arbitrary exercises of power."
This pontificate is characterized by the arbitrary exercise of power
I hope the Pillar will do a story if it can confirm that F.S. was never discussed by the Dicastery's General Assembly, and give context as to how common that is for docs published by the Dicastery.
Excellent point. As I have said elsewhere, FS is such a shoddy western-centric document. If more people from different continents had been involved in its creation, might they have raised multiple red lights? Like, how is this going to work for polygamous set ups? How is this going to be received in Africa? (Check out the Anglican African reaction to the Anglo Anglicans introducing same sex "blessings"). Is this going to give zealous Muslims another excuse to persecute and murder Catholics because they are obviously pro-gay?
Western-centric? Nothing new. Remember the death penalty update in the Catechism? The logic was that since penitential justice systems have reached such an advanced level, the death penalty is now an intrinsic moral evil... but anywhere outside of the top two dozen or so countries of the 200+ countries on earth could fit that qualifier even now, let alone who knows what might happen in the future. It's like he never stopped to even think of Central Africa, the obvious shining beacon of security/stability effectiveness and prison policy reform...
Yes, the Western-centric bias of the new teaching on the death penalty is all too obvious. But even modern prison systems can't totally control their inmates. I used to be a volunteer prison visitor at Reading Prison (yes, Oscar Wilde slept there). The staff were always alert to spring into instant action if the riot bell rang. If they did not instantly control even a minor fight, they might well lose the prison completely (as indeed happened on 26th December 1992).
And there is no guarantee of safety for any staff, prisoners or volunteers like me. We were briefed on how to survive (no guarantees) if a riot isolated us in one cell.
Did anyone at the Vatican ask about prisons in various parts of the world? Did anyone around Pope Francis seek views from any Catholic policemen, prison officers, criminologists, prison chaplains, prison doctors, etc before he issued that decree?
Good question. I have a strong feeling that this document was more the opinion of 2 or 3 people rather than a representative consultation of bishops/clergy/theologians from the worldwide Catholic Church.
Die ersten beiden Absätze Ihres Kommentars sind schlecht durchdacht.
Das sind überhaupt keine starken Argumente, aber weil ich ein dummer Amerikaner bin und kein Deutsch spreche, sollte ich nicht versuchen, es im Detail zu erklären.
Did the pope issue it, or did the DDF? I thought the pope's signature was absent, whatever his oral comments may have been. I assume that limits its magisterial weight, regardless if whether the DDF chooses to call it a "declaration" and give it a Latin title or whether they choose to publish it as a response to dubia. But there has been a lot of writing on this, and I can't bring myself to read the document directly to check, so perhaps I am incorrect on that detail. All the DDF documents lose me lately in their long introductions where they pat themselves on the back for having such a shepherd's heart.
The pope's signature is NOT absent, even though the document is written and issued by the DDF. He signed at the bottom of the document: Ex Audientia Die 18 December 2023 Francis.
Both the Pope and the DDF are ordinary organs of the Magisterium. Making a distinction who issued it is needlessly splitting hairs, especially if Francis' name is attached to FS
The pope has the capability of exercising an extraordinary magisterium which the DDF does not. That's why I'm drawing this distinction. This is scandalous, but it does not, in fact, strike at infallibility and produce equally authoritative, normative, definitive statements of equal weight, even if the document clearly promotes teaching which is blatantly opposed to Scripture and our constant and robust Tradition on the topic.
Do you have a reference that defines the magisterium exercised by the DDF? Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 discuss the magisterium of the pope individually and of the college of bishops speaking as a unified body, but I'm not aware of a statement that requires me to ascribe authority to the DDF. I believe the CDF wrote some explanatory document in the recent past trying to give itself some level of authority, but I can't remember the name of that document at the moment to see how strong of a chink it can put into my argument here.
Wow. God save his Holy Church.
Screed.
Screed's Feed and Seed
Which part qualifies as a screed?
Really, your comment demonstrates the culvert confusion Card. Mueller points out. The article, in a logical and sequential way, points out the problems with FS (which itself ran to, what, 5,000 words?). The need for such a detailed response rose from the detailed and confusing document itself.
It is, perhaps, intellectually dishonest to dismiss with a derogatory word such a well-reasoned and -articulated response to a document that, at both first glance and upon deeper reflection, is neither.
I used the word screed because I found it tedious. Tedious because it smells of fear. Fear of what? Bestowing pastoral blessings on anyone who asks? If people are disingenuous in requesting the blessing, then they are not truly blessed. Only God knows their true hearts.
The question seems to be are we going to be a Church that the person giving the blessing is going to be the judge of the worthiness of the person requesting the blessing, or are we going to be the Church that seeks in great faith that this is a person who is suffering in some way and seeks to be helped by God?
Carrot or stick? Cardinal Muller seems to prefer the stick. It is not love to deny a suffering person a blessing.
How many people do you believe are moping around outside the Church, sad because the Church won’t affirm through the sacramental of a blessing that God loves them?
More importantly: what prevented *anyone* from walking up to *any* cleric and requesting a blessing?
I’ll make it easy: nothing did. Not one thing.
What has changed with this document?
In one way… nothing. Couldn’t bless sin on December 17, can’t bless sin on December 24.
In another way…lots. Because on December 17, everybody (including “couples in irregular situations”) knew that their irregular situation was a barrier to union with God (because it is sinful) and the Church (because if it was public sin, celebrated sin, then it would cause scandal). Today, ¿quién sabe? The DDC spent 50 paragraphs both explaining something that didn’t need it, and sowing confusion.
And if Cardinal Mueller was “afraid” of anything (which I doubt), it was precisely the confusion that has been apparent the last week.
I’m sure Card Mueller would apologize for your finding his writing “tedious”. Blessing “couples in irregular situations” will not relieve the suffering that comes from their *sin*, and it’s unkind on our part IMHO to pretend that it will. Any suffering we experience from our sin is finally relieved through sacramental confession and absolution.
A blessing is like an ice pack for a broken leg: it will make it stop hurting for a while, but unless the break is set, cast, and allowed to heal, the ice is only a temporary, fell-better measure. The pain will inevitably come back, and worse.
Sometimes the ice pack is everything.
Not when your leg is broken. It is a temporary relief for what is a debilitating (and in some cases, life-threatening) injury.
If you truly know people who are now going to be aided in their quest for holiness by receiving a blessing with their same-sex partner, or with their cohabiting partner, I’m all for it.
But I don’t think that’s the goal here (because in one way there is nothing new in FS). I have no more ability or permission to bless folks than I had on 12/17.
In another way, *everything* has changed, because of the confusion introduced here.
160 intelligent comments later, FS has demonstrated its ability to confuse an issue that didn’t need confusion. (Okay, 157 intelligent plus my three).
It is in fact not love to confirm someone in sin. A priest blessing a same sex couple as a couple is doing exactly that.
Sinodality for the adversaries; authocracy for me. Pope Francis entire papacy is self-contradictory, unfortunately.
What was the point of 2 years walking together if declarations are then made on the basis of the magisterium of Francis? Why did we all waste our time?
It was never about walking "together." It was about including the laity in order to rig votes and get the desired outcome. That's why it is also being conducted in two parts. You need to count votes the first time, so you can more effectively rig things the next time.
Not that such a mind requires my agreement, but I agree that this whole thing hinges on whether the individuals or the union itself is blessed.
Granted, I've only read through FS once, but I do not remember any language saying the union could be blessed, just people in such a union. FS even quotes and reaffirms the 2021 declaration.
Since the Cardinal only uses paragraph citations rather than quotes, does anyone know what specific language he is responding to that suggests the union itself can be blessed?
The declaration speaks of “couples,” which in the cardinal’s argument here is indistinguishable from “unions,” since it is the relationship simulating the conjugal union that makes a gathering of two persons into a couple. Here is the quotation from FS: “Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex...”
Oooof. Okay. My brain probably didn't want to process that the first time. Thank you!
Muller makes the bare assertion that "what defines a couple as couple is precisely their being a union." However, he never bothers to define what consitutes a "union" is in the eyes of the Church (which must be something different from the "union" She speaks of in the sacrament of marriage; otherwise it would be impossible to speak of a "union" existing at all!). Furthermore, if what consitutes a "couple" is their participating in a "union", what are we to make of two people who have no sexual relations, or of two people who have not secured any form of civil union from the government? If two same-sex individuals who were romantically involved (but had no sexual relations or civil union) approached for a blessing, would Muller say their relationship *can* be blessed because there is *no* "union" between them? Or is a "union" formed merely by any mutual action toward a romantic interest between two persons? Whatever it is Muller means by a "union", it seems too narrow to be the all-powerful constitutive element of what is commonly called a "couple".
I think you are conflating "couple" and "pair" when referring to a group of two human individuals as they are used as nouns within english.
Think of how people are described and if the word "couple" or "pair" is used within a situation. I would posit that "couple" is typically used dominantly for two human individuals that have a romantic interest rather than a like-type connection.
1. Two males are put together on a 2 vs 2 basketball game: They are a pair, not a couple.
2. A group of heterogeneous people are separated into groups of two. They are referred to as pairs.
3. Two best friends with non-romantic feelings (phileo NOT eros) are always seen together and do many of the same activities. "That pair is always getting into trouble.
4. Two individuals are seen canoodling in a corner. "That couple should be more circumspect so not to give scandal."
In the English language, I can't think of a situation where "couple" would be used normally/correctly when a romantic connection is not implied.
From that you can conclude two things about why there is so much discussion and disagreement about this document:
1. The document was translated improperly to English.
2. Cardinal Muller is correct and the document is self-contradictory in that it indicates (in agreement with the 2021 declaration) that the couple can't be blessed (due to the romantic connotations are inherent with the word
"couple"), but also that the couple can be blessed for pastoral reasons.
I'm not sure why you are accusing me of conflation; I agree that "couple" generally indicates there exists an acted-upon romantic interest between two people.
However, that does not adress Muller's argument that a "couple" is constituted by the existance of a "union" between the two persons. Certainly, this assertion does not match up with common parlance, where two dating individuals are often called a "couple". If Muller wants to limit the idea of a "couple" to only those relationship in which there is a "union", that's fine. However, he is then stuck with the situation where a two people in a same-sex dating relationship approach for a blessing when there exists no "union" between them. Either Muller must admit that they can be blessed because there is no union between them, or Muller must admit that the idea of a "union" is not actually doing the work in his analysis. Muller's argument is therefore incorrect in both cases. The third option is that a "union" is formed whenever two people act upon romantic interest; however, this leads to rather absurd conclusions, such as two 12-year-olds have formed a "union" by going on a few dates. That's an option, strictly speaking, but I don't think anyone really wants to make that argument.
Now, I am open to the suggestion that the translation is not very good. I tend to think translation is a bigger problem that most people realize. However, FS takes pains to distinguish between unions and couples (as well as couples being distinct from individuals, but that is more implicit). So, I would want to see specific suggestions as to what is being translated poorly.
The document is not self-contradictory insofar as it says that "unions" cannot be blessed, but that "couples" can receive certain kinds of blessing under certain circumstances following certain guidelines. This is only a contradition if you collapse the definitions of "couple" and "union", as Muller argues, such that a couple always has a union (and argue that a couple cannot be blessed in any way apart from the union they share, but that is a subsequent hurdle for Muller). However, this definitional collapse leads to the above-mentioned problems, making this an untenable argument.
But dating is oriented towards marriage and is a transitional stage. A man and a woman may date now to determine if they will marry later. It's mostly a novelty that people today just sort of hang around together forever and never get married. We're also kidding ourselves if we think the people doing that are chaste. For that reason alone, though I think there are many others, we shouldn't be encouraging these relationships as normative.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you.
While I mostly agree with your statement, this seems to be tangential to the topic. Is there a particular criticism you are trying to draw?
These terms don't seem quite so difficult to me. The Church is very clear about what constitutes a marriage, of course. And the two persons so united constitute a married "couple." A man and a woman who are not married but who may be "romantically involved" also constitute a couple of sorts, and this may either be a chaste relationship or not but it would only be praiseworthy if it were geared toward the possibility of marriage. The specific actions that may define two such people as a couple rather than merely as two "friends" vary from place to place. But whatever the kind of bond ("union") that unites them, the cases in question in FS are self-selecting, in the most straightforward reading. What is at issue is that a couple presents itself to the priest *as a couple,* not merely as a pair of friends. In the case of divorced-and-civilly-remarried people or same-sex couples, it is difficult to see how one could bless this "couple"-hood without at the same time blessing a "union" that is contrary to natural and divine law. It doesn't really matter how we choose to define "union."
You speak of "two same-sex individuals who were romantically involved (but had no sexual relations or civil union)." I don't really know what that would mean, but it seems clear that two such persons seeking to be blessed as a couple would certainly have a "union" of sorts precisely because they are asking to be blessed *as a couple.* And this union or bond is what makes them a "couple" rather than just a "couple of people."
"In the case of divorced-and-civilly-remarried people or same-sex couples, it is difficult to see how one could bless this "couple"-hood without at the same time blessing a "union" that is contrary to natural and divine law."
Is it difficult? As FS proposes, such a blessing imparts "actual graces" (ie the assistance to do good and avoid evil) such that "human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel" (FS 31). What is fidelity to the gospel according to FS (FS 5: " This is also the understanding of marriage that is offered by the Gospel")? That marriage a is “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children” (FS 4) ... "it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning." (FS 4) Thus according to FS, the blessing is to impart graces that aid the couple in living accourding to the natural and divine law in relation to one another. FS then continues that the blessing is that "they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties", which from the preceding clearly includes their illicit union, and that "they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love ", which from the preceding means living according to the Gospel teaching on mariage and sexuality. As a right order of the relationship between the two people according to the Gospel inherently involves the*relationship* between, it is right and proper to bless that relationship. Doing so in no way legimates their illict couple-hood (FS 31, 34, 40), but rather orders their relationship *away* from their illicit couple-hood (which is evil) and toward the divine plan for their relationship (which is good).
In other words, FS has contemplated this issue and given clear instructions as to what is an is not being strengthened, weakened, legimated, approved, etc. FS teaches that the union between persons is not being legimated by such a blessing, but rather that the relationship between persons is being granted graces to live according to the natural and divine law for their relationship. Certainly, FS could state this more clearly, but it's all there in the document.
I am amazed at the knowledge and analytical capabilities of the Plilar readers as demonstrated in the above comments. But taken together it is all pedantic. Did the Pope intend for a Church blessing be bestowed on a pair or a union. ? Obviously at this point in the last days of his Papacy he does not care about such niceties . He simply wanted to move the Church towards inclusion of the LGBT community. I have no idea the difference this and any further attempts at inclusion will make in the future of the Church. Most of the LGBT community has, to the extent they wish to be part of an organized religion , left the Church. And I do not see any non Catholic LGBT members wanting to join. The only thing that makes this topic viable is the Fr. Jim Martin and others trying to shoe horn the LGBT community into the Church. Why does any LGBT member want to join an organization that finds them intrinsically disordered and living in a constant state of sin. Because they believe that their eternal salvation is jeopardized unless the Church fully recognizes their personhood. ? What grace filled person would ever suggest much less mean that?
Remember that vast numbers of the hierarchy and priests are homosexuals. Many are also narcissists and egomaniacs. Believe me when I tell you that changing doctrine and practice just for their own gratification is not beneath them. They care not for souls, for families, or for Christ. They care for their own twisted hearts.
🫤 That’s a logical fallacy (hasty generalization), there probably are members of the hierarchy who are exactly what you describe. But to describe them as “vast numbers” in order to strengthen your argument isn’t correct.
You may be correct that some of those promoting this letter are as you describe. But that isn’t what’s going on (there are over a billion Catholics, and what, 414,000 priests total? 33/100 of 1%
The “vast numbers” aren’t the issue. It’s their placement in the hierarchy thats at issue.
For anyone else looking for this, here is the full context (h/t @Charles Weaver):
"31. Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex, the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage. In such cases, a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit. These forms of blessing express a supplication that God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his Spirit—what classical theology calls “actual grace”—so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love."
I mean, my interpretation of this is almost that I /have/ to pray that they may be "freed from their imperfections and frailties" which would obviously include the grave sin of non-marital sexual relations. I am always happy to say that prayer with those who request it.
In other words, a blessing that sounds something like "May God bless you with the grace of chastity." But how many same-sex couples or "remarried" divorcees would actually welcome such a challenging blessing? If they did indeed welcome it, then by all means they should receive it. But those are not the sort of folks that Fr. James Martin wants to parade in The New York Times, is it?
Although it’s unfair to say I’ve surveyed the entire United States, I’m generally disappointed that theology tends to be taught to our priests here from a disciplinary standpoint, and the richness and sometimes openness of truths are eliminated in favor of black/white clarity. In some ways I’m grateful our contribution to the overall Church is canon law, but it has also permeated and clouded the theology framework here in a way that few countries understand. The disciplinarians abroad love our defense of truth and gravitate toward America for a reason— for better and worse. Respectfully, to say it hinges on that question alone misses nearly all of the Theology.
A couple of the dozens of Theology Questions you could start with: in what ways, if any, does the particular couple approaching a parish do so for help with a concrete moral judgement on their peculiarities as created by God?
To what extent, if any, does the couple asking for help appear open to the positive properties of fecondità (fruitfulness) and complementarietà? [and yes, when we boil the teaching into a bullet point format for catechism or parish homilies we tend to simplify it as one man/one woman open to life. But the teaching is actually so much deeper]
Are they acting on tendencies that are natural, or what we historically understood to be hedonistic and selfish (expressed in English as a choice, a rebellion against nature, and in previous centuries a crime).
Dan: You're saying quite a bit here, but I will make one point of disagreement. I do not believe that moral law and canon law are opposed, nor are they simply "disciplinary" as you imply. As I often explain when teaching, biblical law, liturgical norms, moral law and canon law have one primary goal: to bring about order, happiness, and salvation to the Church. Too often - even at the highest levels - there seems to only be a negative view or "disciplinary motive" of such law.
I’ll join you in asserting the absolute necessity of the disciplinary approach. There was a pretty well documented divorce of sorts in academic theology between the canonists and theologians a few hundred years back. They overall are supposed to complement and balance one another out. It continues to be apparent that the Germans, for example, lack credible discipline in how they teach. On the other hand, on the whole, over here in the USA the formation has gone too far the other direction. The various academic fields need to integrate in a way that sharpens, balances eachother out, and helps the other mature.
Scotius, you are correct.
Regarding the implication that Dan makes regarding seminary formation here in the US seems not only faulty but also ignorant.
On what does he base his conclusions about teaching theology from only a "disciplinary" point or view.
Has he recently made of tour of seminaries and sat in for a semester in classes?
It sounds like his perceptions of priests formed here is without any empirical or comprehensive data.
When one is a pastor decisions have to be made in accordance with all aspects of what one is dealing with.
Certainly the couple should be primary, then the a priest needs to try to understand the motivation for the blessing, what the couple believe results from the blessing and then what a blessing might imply or seem to imply. The Faith of the Church must also be a big part of a decision on what the priest thinks he is doing and how much scandal might be given.
The Declaration clearly seems to imply that it contains new rules (opps, that's disciplinary), a new theology and innovations that are inconsistent with the Tradition of the Church.
The new rules, theology and innovations of the Declaration cannot be seen light of the perennial and consistent Faith of the Church.
Many Catholics might wish to replace feelings with spiritual and theological realities.
It seems to me that if you are blessing a couple who request a blessing they are not presenting themselves not as individuals but a couple...two people asking for a blessing together not only implies that said couple is in a union but that they want a blessing for the union.
The gobbledygook in the Declaration is confused and confusing. Papal sophistry.
Two people asking for a blessing together does not at all imply that there is any sort of union or romantic relationship between them.
I was thinking about this recently, in the context of my FSSP parish, and the Phillipinos at my mother's parish. Both groups are far more likely to ask for blessings from priests for small things or just because than the typical American parish. I have personally been blessed in a parking lot with another person of the same sex in the context of car trouble, by someone who I suspect would die before blessing a same-sex union. There was no attempt to bless each of us individually, and no need to. In part because there is so much more blessing going on, and in part because we know our priests, no one there would have made any assumptions about an immoral relationship even if they didn't know us.
So I think there has to be quite a bit more going on than a blessing of two people of the same sex simultaneously. The German Bishop Wiesemann's letter from February, from what I can make out through google translate, does go well beyond this, with the intention of specifically addressing the relationship between the two people and asking God to strengthen various good-sounding things in it, like "love, commitment and mutual responsibility". Others seem to be going down the same lines. Likely they will employ phrases from FS like "In a brief prayer preceding this spontaneous blessing, the ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance—but also God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely." Which nicely specifies the good things, and leaves ambiguous that "fulfill his will" even partially, requires repentance and chastity.
I think FS is actually easier to interpret in an orthodox manner than some other things the Pope has said, but it left plenty of room for scandalous blessings.
Two men or two women presenting themselves for a blessing is not the same as you asking for or being given a blessing for car trouble.
Your logic and analogy are faulty.
Perhaps I misinterpreted when you said "two people asking for a blessing together not only implies that said couple is in a union but that they want a blessing for the union". But my intent was to provide an example of two people asking for a blessing that had no implication that they were a couple or in a union.
Does Cardinal Müller have an apartment at the Vatican?
Not for long...
Maybe he can room with Cardinal Burke to save money and stay close to the Vatican.
Ah yes, my favorite "Friends" spinoff
With all due respect to His Eminence, it is exceptionally and expressly clear from the document itself that it is in fact simply referring to the (b) type blessings he discusses, and also exceptionally and expressly clear that its goal is not to propose an entirely new category of blessings, but simply to clarify and regulate and limit the application of such already-envisioned blessings to particular hard cases. The text also very clearly and express that such blessings should not be blessings or legitimations of the sexual relationship or activities of the persons blessed, but merely a blessing of the persons themselves--which His Eminence acknowledges, but regards as contradictory because, apparently, blessing two people together and/or referring to these two people as a "couple" (a term which means "two people") intrinsically involves also blessing their sexual activities regardless of the intentions of the one giving the blessing. If accurate this claim would appear to have vast implications.
The text is not beyond challenge and criticism, but it does not speak well of the basic reading comprehension skills of Catholic media figures that they seem unable to attack it without simply ignoring or seeming unaware of the plain statements of the text itself.
But I hear and actually see on line that some prominent Catholic priests are already celebrating this document and gleefully blessing "couples" publicly as if it is something new.
Admittedly I am already punch drunk reading about FS and the countless interpretations. But are there more priests, apart from Father James Martin, who have already spontaneously celebrated such unions (in the company of a photographer who happened to spontaneously drop in) under the justification provided by FS?
Should have been singular "priest" for now, at least in the US. And can you call it spontaneous if the New York Times just happens to be there? And NPR has a program with interviews of LGBT folks excited about the new blessing for them. No scandal here.
In the usual way of thinking about human relationships, “couple” means much more than simply “two people.” The declaration seems to speak of such entities as having more significance than just as a collection of two persons. For instance, it would never be in question to bless a mother and child, but nobody would call those two persons a “couple.” The newly proposed blessings, in apparent contradiction to the previous ruling from 2021 and indeed the entire Catholic tradition, can certainly be read in the way Cdl. Müller does so here.
The text basically says that such blessings can be done as long as they doesn't cause scandal, but it's like saying that murder is permitted as long as it doesn't result in a death.
Great point.
I do believe that FS was intended to refer to type "b" blessings. But I disagree that it is "exceptionally and expressly clear" from the text.
FS speaks to "blessing couples in irregular situations" when the blessing is "requested by a couple in an irregular situation." The term "couple" may refer simply to "two people" - but the context of the entire document (especially the concern for scandal and confusion with a civil union or wedding) makes it clear that the term "couple" here is intended to refer to two people in a romantic relationship. By referring to blessings *of" those couples and blessings *for* those couples, the text of FS is open to the interpretation that persons in an irregular romantic relationship can still be blessed *as* a couple. Personally, I do not see how a priest could bless two people *as* a couple without validating the relationship in some way. It seems to me that most attempts to rationalize it away only succeed because most Catholics do not find most "irregular situations" to be morally wrong anymore. But I hope that most priests would see how those attempts fall short if a brother and sister in a romantic relationship ever asked to be blessed *as* a couple.
If the intent of FS is (as I believe) to refer only to type "b" blessings, then I think it could have been (and should been) much clearer. It seems that even a small change, like "blessing a person who is in an irregular romantic relationship," could have gone a long way to clarifying the issue.
If the text were so obviously perfectly clear and unobjectionable why is there such an uproar over it? Do we as a Church have a basic inability to understand simple and straightforward things?
Do you think that perhaps it might be you who are unable to see the doctrinal and practical contradictions at the center of the document instead of virtually every one else seeing something that isn't there?
An excellent, clearly defined point about the nature of what is occurring via the priesthood itself. We are left with either the blasphemy of an ordained priest calling down God’s grace onto something that by its nature (any sort of sexual relationship outside of valid sacramental marriage) rejects God or the heresy of some sort of sacramental modalism which pretends the permanent mark of ordination on the priest’s soul can somehow be laid aside at convenience while he does XYZ as a regular Joe.
Many thanks to the Pillar for publishing this essay. The cardinal eloquently addresses many concerns that many faithful people of good will have harbored the last few days.
What a difference (in style, substance, and clarity) between this essay and the declaration itself!
Usually, stuff coming out of Rome has been able to be nuanced somewhat easily into a hermaneutic of continuity. But Fiducia Supplicans is flagrant: I see some prominent online Catholic apologists and content creators trying to make defenses of this... but it's completely undermined when all the bishops are like "yes, this is in fact exactly what it looks like - it's a blessing for open homosexual relationships and unions."
Some dioceses (like those in the developing world) are spurning this as inadmissable, others (like the Germans/Belgians, who are wrong about literally everything else btw) are lauding this and saying "yes, this is exactly what we're looking for and we'll be publishing the prayers we want everyone to pray." Whether they agree with FS or disagree, nobody's sugar-coating it and saying the spade-looking thing is somehow not a spade.
I feel like if someone asks me about it, to say that it's anything other than an official endorsement of active homosexual unions vis-a-vis blessings, then I look like the "Man Behind the Curtain" in the Wizard of Oz; the reality is clear, and I look like a sad buffoon trying to convince them otherwise.
I wouldn't go that far. It does clearly state the Church's teaching on marriage amd that homosexual sexual relations are objectively inadmissable.
Cardinal Mueller's take is far more accurate - the document is internally inconsistent, by being equivocal on the meaning of "blessing".
So we can say that the document does not contradict the faith-as-revealed (it is nearly impossible to find a dogmatic statement on blessings, which is the matter being inconsistently discussed), but also provides confusion and not clarity in that which is still under discussion.
And this is all the more reason that to say that “no further clarification is coming” is so problematic. It makes the whole declaration read as a poorly thought-out “pastoral” solution in desperate search of a theological justification.
The pachamama & openly heretical change to the Catechism on the death penalty were even worse.
Yes, the "Catechism Death Penalty" question is HUGE, and I'm surprised no one really takes it seriously anymore. Whenever the question of the Pope contradicting teaching comes up, I'm always told "no, because you need x and y and z criteria all to be present for that to happen"... and then all those criteria are met for the catechism update.
1) the catechism is an official document of the Magisterium that holds significant magisterial weight, because it summates all the beliefs of the Church - what is in the Catechism is what the Church believes and teaches. It is also not necessary for the document to be infallible (a term which actually refers to persons, not documents) nor inerrant (which we only believe about Scripture, even the conciliar documents of Nicea and Vatican II are not "inerrant" in the proper sense).
2) the old version of par. 2267 states clearly that the Church teaches that the death penalty is not an intrinsic moral evil, and that under prudent circumstances is morally permissable.
3) the new version of par. 2267, officially promulgated by the Pope himself, does the following: explicitly acknowledges the previous teaching that existed beforehand; explicitly states that something now in our day is changing; explicitly declares the death penalty an intrinsic moral evil (because it is "inadmissable," with no qualifiers, which means it is always and everywhere wrong to do and cannot be carried out regardless of circumstance, i.e. intrinsic); explicitly states that this teaching comes from Divine Revelation and the Gospel itself, and so is a matter of faith and morals that demands religious assent of intellect and will; universally binds the Church to this teaching so much so that it exhorts the Church to actively abolish the practice universally in all civil practice.
That's literally all the criteria necessary for a contradiction of teaching on matters of faith and morals - a teaching so fundamental, btw, that it borders on a fundamental aspect of human dignity and the natural law.
I have seen many defenses of the update, and none can properly tackle this approach.
This is my struggle with FS and I had no idea the Rubicon had already been crossed, so to speak. I never knew until your comments that the CCC had changed language on the death penalty.
What mechanism has the Church for dealing with this and what has been demonstrated through history? Honorius is the only example that comes to my mind, but I’m not the world’s most thorough student of history and don’t know if that is actually the right example for where we find ourselves now.
I think it goes back even farther. With the dismantling of the Mass in the 60s, and the changes that were made even though scripture teaches them and they were perennial in Catholic life, there is a sense that any teaching is up for grabs if it can be shown to be "historical" therefore we do not have to take it literally. Fernandez states this in an interview from July of this year. He makes the strange leap that because women no longer veil at Mass...we may eventually change our belief about homosexuality. (see I Cor. 11:11-16)
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2023/07/in-new-interview-fernandez-says-bible.html
One of the Popes John also had heretical views but he at least repented.
Honestly nobody actually knows where we go from here. The Lord will provide for His Church and right now all we can do is stay faithful.
Where did you find that definition for inadmissible?
It’s in the word “inadmissible”
To say it is inadmissible means one cannot be allowed to do it. Obviously, this carries a moral weight - if something cannot be allowed, it’s because doing it is bad/wrong/etc. to do.
The updated language in CCC not only teaches that the death penalty is “inadmissible” (read: “wrong/bad to do”), but also does not place any qualifiers on it whatsoever (CCC could have said “it is inadmissible in our day when xyz criteria are met…” but doesn’t). Always and everywhere, in every circumstance, *by the light of the Gospel*, it is ALWAYS wrong.
What naturally results, then, is “inadmissible” = “intrinsic moral evil”
Pussyfooting around “the definition of inadmissible” to say “oh that doesn’t mean it’s wrong! It just can’t be allowed no matter what” makes no sense and does not sit with how the Church has always approached these ways of defining matters.
First, if it is “pussyfooting” to maintain that words mean what they mean...then that actually has a long tradition in the Church.
Secondly, to imply that inadmissible was said without qualifiers is factually incorrect. CCC 2267 does almost nothing BUT offer qualifiers. It talks about “increasing awareness,” more effective penal systems, and “new understandings.” So if any of those proves to be wrong, conclusions based on them would also be wrong.
And the inadmissibility of the death penalty is a direct consequence of those arguments.
You’re not describing qualifiers, and what you listed are not qualifiers. Qualifiers are conditions that make something possible “xyz is ok *IF* abc conditions are fulfilled.”
What you’re describing is more like… a pedagogy, I guess?
Yes... because "inadmissable" is not technically an accepted theological term, the interpretation that it is prudentially wrong from this point forward, due to our increased modern capabilities and understanding of human dignity, is the only way I've found that doesn't contradict past teaching.
The catechism didn't say that wherever we have the capability to protect society without executions, and an understanding of human dignity, we shouldn't execute people. After talking about how we have those capabilities and understanding, it said "Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide."
The trouble is, there are plenty of places in the modern world that have thoroughly ineffective penal systems, and other places whose penal systems are becoming far less effective, whether from an increase in poverty or from a lack of enforcement, or from the crime simply not being considered to be that bad anymore (e.g., 6 months parole for raping an unconscious woman). If the death penalty is now prudentially inadmissable everywhere in the world, even those places where there is no running water or electricity, and people have legitimate concerns about starving to death from poverty, and funding for prisons is rather slim, and where ancient Rome had a more stable society, then when and where has it been prudentially admissible?
There's no way to make this passage helpful. Either "the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide." doesn't actually mean worldwide, but only some places in the world, or doesn't actually mean inadmissable, but only sometimes inadmissable, or it doesn't actually mean "abolition", but only decrease, or it doesn't actually mean that the Church teaches this.
I simply ignored the update. I once read about a prison in Mexico where the guards armed the prisoners every evening and sent them to kill people. So in cases like that one either kills the killers or allows more innocents to be murdered. Granted that's not a common situation but it does happen and in that case executions are necessary for the common good.
You're almost entirely correct. The only argument I'd make that doesn't open a whole other can of worms is how we know the Catechism mow claims the death penalty is an intrinsic and grave evil.
Inadmissible doesn't mean anything theologically however an attack on human dignity does. The claim that the death penalty is such would make God Himself guilty of mortal sin.
linking "inadmissable" to "because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the human person" mandates the understanding that it's an intrinsic grave moral evil, because the inherent dignity of the human person does not change no matter the circumstance.
Correct and that would make God Himself guilty of mortal sin. Toucho had the same error in his interview with The Pillar where he offhandedly mentioned that the death penalty for sodomy is an attack on human dignity.
Papabile!
There's a difference between thinking and scheming, and it's on full display now in the way Fiducia supplicans is being received by some (e.g., see article in NY Times about J. Martin).
"There's a difference between thinking and scheming..." YES!
(...unless you're a modernist Jesuit, who would only look at your statement with sincere bewilderment.)
There's a reason that the term "jesuitical reasoning" is pejorative.
"This leads to a second observation: it is hazardous to invent new terms that go against the traditional usage of language. Such procedure can give rise to arbitrary exercises of power."
This pontificate is characterized by the arbitrary exercise of power
I hope the Pillar will do a story if it can confirm that F.S. was never discussed by the Dicastery's General Assembly, and give context as to how common that is for docs published by the Dicastery.
Excellent point. As I have said elsewhere, FS is such a shoddy western-centric document. If more people from different continents had been involved in its creation, might they have raised multiple red lights? Like, how is this going to work for polygamous set ups? How is this going to be received in Africa? (Check out the Anglican African reaction to the Anglo Anglicans introducing same sex "blessings"). Is this going to give zealous Muslims another excuse to persecute and murder Catholics because they are obviously pro-gay?
Western-centric? Nothing new. Remember the death penalty update in the Catechism? The logic was that since penitential justice systems have reached such an advanced level, the death penalty is now an intrinsic moral evil... but anywhere outside of the top two dozen or so countries of the 200+ countries on earth could fit that qualifier even now, let alone who knows what might happen in the future. It's like he never stopped to even think of Central Africa, the obvious shining beacon of security/stability effectiveness and prison policy reform...
Yes, the Western-centric bias of the new teaching on the death penalty is all too obvious. But even modern prison systems can't totally control their inmates. I used to be a volunteer prison visitor at Reading Prison (yes, Oscar Wilde slept there). The staff were always alert to spring into instant action if the riot bell rang. If they did not instantly control even a minor fight, they might well lose the prison completely (as indeed happened on 26th December 1992).
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/prison-officers-retake-riot-jail-by-storm-1565560.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballad_of_Reading_Gaol
And there is no guarantee of safety for any staff, prisoners or volunteers like me. We were briefed on how to survive (no guarantees) if a riot isolated us in one cell.
Did anyone at the Vatican ask about prisons in various parts of the world? Did anyone around Pope Francis seek views from any Catholic policemen, prison officers, criminologists, prison chaplains, prison doctors, etc before he issued that decree?
But, Bill, that would require a kind of... synodality. Which, by now, we all recognize as hypocritical claptrap and smoke-screening.
I had these same thoughts after a few minutes of reflection on this change and am consoled to hear that others had similar reactions.
Good question. I have a strong feeling that this document was more the opinion of 2 or 3 people rather than a representative consultation of bishops/clergy/theologians from the worldwide Catholic Church.
Me too . Wish they had consulted the Nigerian Bishops
The message here is that synodality with Africans doesn't really count.
Well one Cardinal did say once that we don't listen to what they say.
I would also wonder if James Martin may have consulted on the text before it came out.
Of course he did
Based.