Vatican to Permit Same Sex Blessings?
The Church of England decided a few months ago to adopt a compromise position on same-sex unions. While maintaining its prohibition of same-sex marriage, it will allow its priests/ministers to “bless" these unions. It will not mandate such blessings; the choice of whether to bless or not to bless these will be left to individual ministers.
This arrangement is a compromise between twenty centuries of Christian tradition and the spirit of the age. This approach is now prevalent across many Catholic dioceses in Western Europe.
Pope Francis has just appointed Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernández as head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Cardinal-elect Fernández has expressed reservations regarding the Church's prohibition on same-sex blessings - or, at least its wording - and has undertaken to reassess this so that it is in conformity with the “recent Magisterium” of the Church. The current position is laid out in the 2021 reply to the query, “Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?” the DDF, with the support of Pope Francis, answered, “Negative” giving the following reasons:
“[I]n order to conform with the nature of sacramentals … it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord …
For this reason, it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex. The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing …
The Christian community and its Pastors are called to welcome with respect and sensitivity persons with homosexual inclinations, and will know how to find the most appropriate ways, consistent with Church teaching, to proclaim to them the Gospel in its fullness. At the same time, they should recognize the genuine nearness of the Church – which prays for them, accompanies them and shares their journey of Christian faith – and receive the teachings with sincere openness …
[This[ does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations, who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching … At the same time, the Church recalls that God Himself never ceases to bless each of His pilgrim children in this world, because for Him “we are more important to God than all of the sins that we can commit”. But he does not and cannot bless sin: he blesses sinful man, so that he may recognize that he is part of his plan of love and allow himself to be changed by him. He in fact “takes us as we are, but never leaves us as we are ...
For the above reasons, the Church does not have, and cannot have, the power to bless unions of persons of the same sex in the sense intended above.”
Cardinal-elect, Víctor Manuel Fernández, has voiced an openness to reviewing this prohibition on same-sex blessings. In recent press interviews he has stated:
"I think that, without contradicting what that document says, it would not be wrong to rethink it in the light of everything that Francisco has taught us. Many say that just as it is written, with some expressions that it uses, it does not have the flavour of Francisco. In this, as in others, it will be necessary to include what the Pope asks of me … and that is that the documents of the dicastery accept the recent Magisterium."
“I also understand that "marriage" in the strict sense is only one thing: that stable union of two beings as different as male and female, who in that difference are capable of generating new life. There is nothing that can be compared to that and using that name to express something else is not good or correct. At the same time, I believe that gestures or actions that may express something different should be avoided. That is why I think that the greatest care that must be taken is to avoid rites or blessings that could feed this confusion.. Now, if a blessing is given in such a way that it does not cause that confusion, it will have to be analysed and confirmed. As you will see."
What is this “recent Magisterium”? The Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, issued in 2016, is now part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church (assuming Pope Francis is speaking in union with the bishops throughout the world and his teaching is consistent with existing doctrine).
In Amoris Laetitia Pope Francis calls upon the church to ''make room for the consciences of the faithful, who very often respond as best they can to the Gospel amid their limitations, and are capable of carrying out their own discernment in complex situations'', adding that respect for “personal conscience and pastoral discernment” should guide the Church's stance and pastoral attitude “toward contemporary forms of living together, especially those that do not conform to the ideal of exclusive and lifelong marriage.”
The document refers to those in “irregular” situations (generally understood to mean divorced and remarried couples) and says: “Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.”
This is in line with established doctrine. However, here's the rub, Footnote 351 adds: “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, ‘I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy’. I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.’”
These crucial sentences in the Footnote for some shift the teaching of the Catholic Church. When asked, Pope Francis claimed he could not remember this Footnote - one of 391. There have been suggestions it was inserted without him noticing. Is this a development of doctrine or a breach with doctrine? Different bishops hold different opinions on this.
With the exception of Footnote 351, much of this appears to be in line with the Church’s teaching concerning grave sin. The Catechism says that “Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice,” and “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.”
If those in sexually active same sex relationships are not necessarily “subjectively culpable”, why shouldn’t “personal conscience and pastoral discernment” apply to them and permit “blessings” and admission to the Eucharist? Was the Footnote a 'Trojan Horse' for 'progressives' inserted by its editors (one being the then Archbishop Fernández, said to have ghost written much of the exhortation)?
Pope St John Paul II had a different answer to the question of the divorced and remarried and access to the Eucharist. In his 1984 exhortation Familiaris Consortio. He was clear - remarried people should not receive Communion unless they live “in complete continence,” adding, “the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.”
Catholic moral and pastoral theology accepts people should be encouraged to grow closer to God and that His plan for our lives in a step-by-step manner rather than expecting to jump from an initial conversion to perfection in a single step. We are not made perfect upon our initial conversion but must grow in various ways over time and we must continue to struggle against sin.
What John Paul called “the law of gradualness” does not refer to a “gradual” turning away from sin, but to the perennial Christian doctrine that we are not yet perfect in the first moment of our conversion. When we receive a grace of conversion, we break definitively from evil and then gradually advance in holiness. We may even fall back into grave sin, but, helped by grace, we repent and start anew. Here, the sacrament of Penance has an important role to play: it calls us to renounce our sins definitively with a firm purpose of amendment. In effect, he who will not yet repent, will not yet accept God’s mercy, and so is not forgiven.
St. John Paul II:
“[Married people] cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future: they must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with constancy. And so what is known as 'the law of gradualness' or step-by-step advance cannot be identified with 'gradualness of the law,' as if there were different degrees or forms of precept in God's law for different individuals and situations.
In God's plan, all husbands and wives are called in marriage to holiness, and this lofty vocation is fulfilled to the extent that the human person is able to respond to God's command with serene confidence in God's grace and in his or her own will.”
Amoris Laetitia teaches something different - i.e., those individuals in objective situations of sin who are not subjectively culpable, may, in certain cases, without changes to their lifestyle, because of personal conscience and pastoral considerations, may receive Holy Communion.
Cardinal Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, illustrates the trajectory of this change of approach. When it was released in 2021, he has said he would be willing to see “creative ways” discovered to circumvent the DDF directive.
“If the request for the blessing is not a show, not just a kind of coronation of an external ritual, if the request for the blessing is sincere, [if] it is really the request for God’s blessing for a life path that two people, in whatever situation, are trying to walk; then they will not be denied this blessing.” He went on to say his pastoral duty would be to admonish the couple and call the persons seeking the blessing on their union to “the ideal” proposed by the Church. “Even if, as a priest or bishop, I have to say: ‘You have not realized the full ideal, it is important that you live your way on the basis of human virtues, without which there is no successful partnership … [T]hat deserves a blessing. Whether the right form of expression for this is a liturgical blessing ceremony – that is something to think about carefully.”
The Bishop of Antwerp, goes further. Recounting how the Belgian bishops officially introduced the blessing of “irregular couples” (i.e. same sex unions) in their dioceses, he says it is based on Amoris Laetitia explaining, “It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person to find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community and thus to experience being touched by an ‘unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous’ mercy … The Church has the responsibility of helping them understand the divine pedagogy of grace in their lives and offering them assistance so they can reach the fullness of God’s plan for them.” The Belgian episcopate deduced from Amoris Laetitia that a same sex relationship can become the maximum to offer to God at a given moment, and the Church must respect this “discernment of conscience”. The blessing of irregular couples aims at the imperfect “good”; and the “generous response that can be offered to God” at a given moment.
Is schism looming in the Catholic Church?
Catholics now await Cardinal-elect Fernández's review of Church teaching on this.
Archbishop Fernández was not a good pick for the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/07/archbishop-fernandez-preacher-of-chaos
ReplyDeleteFernández, like way too many of our bishops, is an utter disgrace to the cloth.
As Trent Horn commented:
Delete"At some point thoughtful criticism of the bishops can turn into a vicious contempt that’s bad for the Church and bad for our souls. It also creates obstacles for non-Catholics to come to know Christ through his Church.
You get Catholics who say out of one side of their mouth, “oh I can’t stand the bishops. oh who needs the bishops, they are just a bunch of liberal heretics” and then out of the other side of their mouth they tell their Protestants friends, “Why aren’t you Catholic? Don’t you know that without Christ’s church you have all this denominational chaos? Don’t you know that outside the Church there is no salvation?!”
Think about how weird that sounds. “Listen, you can’t go to heaven unless you are in communion with a Pope I think is a heretic!”,
I think Jack has -- wittingly or not -- put his finger on the crux of the matter. We can "reach out" to non-Catholics by watering the doctrines of the Church down to utter meaninglessness in an effort to hoick them in, or we cleave to them so they shine out like a lighthouse and attract them that way. It will not surprise Jack to learn that I am of the latter school, and I have a personal dog in the fight. My wife is not a Catholic and I would dearly love her to come in, but she sees no attraction because, as she says herself, whenever she attends a novus ordo mass with me, she cannot see any difference between it and a normal day in the Anglican Church, other than no female ministers. It's the oldest cliché there is, unto thine own self be true.
DeleteSorry, the anonymous comment above is from me. Oh for an edit button.
Delete@HJ & Bell,
DeleteTrent Horn is an intelligent, thorough and fair-minded commentator in my (limited) experience of him. (Though I trust that people here will understand that for folk outside the Roman Catholic Church, listening to discussions about popes and anti-popes and subservience to them, or otherwise, can be a bit like the Taliban watching baseball, as somebody, probably ill-advisedly, once said).
But I'm not sure he is quite correct here. For what it's worth, if I were to join the Roman Catholic Church, it would be for its immense and constructive history of Christian thinking and practice (not too mention all the best poetry and architecture) and not for the actions if its (sometimes questionable) popes and bishops - I might have to hold my opinions of their pronouncements and actions in abeyance (as, I'm guessing, rightly or wrongly, many Catholics also do).
If you were to join the Catholic Church, after reciting the Nicene Creed, you would makes the following public profession of faith:
Delete"I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God."
This covers obedience to popes, bishops and the magisterium, notwithstanding the sinful action of said clerics - or their poor leadership and guidance.
Silence is often Golden, as Trent Horn is suggesting.
Fernandez's statement is as incoherent as the Church of England's so-called 'compromise'. It's ok to bless something that causes confusion if it doesn't cause confusion, and we can find ways to contradict Church teaching without contradicting Church teaching.
ReplyDeleteIn certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, ‘I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber...
True; it's better for sinners to be in the Church than outside of it, and the confessional is a place of healing not punishment. But that requires a desire to change, or repentance as it used to be called. It's not a licence to ignore sinful behaviour.
Is schism looming in the Catholic Church?
This has been prophesied almost as long as schism in the CofE has been and, despite much rattling of sabres, nothing has happened.
What would schism look like over this? Something like sedevacantism?
I suspect it'll look like the SSPX continuously growing while the "mainstream" Church continuously contracts until the SSPX is as big as, or comparable to, the Church "proper". At that point, if we're lucky, and God is merciful, a pope with a scintilla of actual supernatural faith will appear, give the SSPX everything they want, and bring them back in to the Church. That's the only way I see this working out for the good. Essentially, the Church will join the SSPX.
Delete@ Lain and Bell
DeleteCatholic critics of Pope Francis and the bishops would never initiate a formal schism. They recognise that he is the pope and thus the successor of Peter, and that to remain within the Catholic Church is to remain faithful to the pope, even if it entails being critical of him in one’s faithfulness to him.
We can say that there is formal schism and informal schism. Formal schism is when you literally start another Church and intentionally exist in a way separated from the pope on principle. Informal (material) schism is when there is a significant division between Christians but not a separation.
Catholics are divided on all sorts of issues and this is heightened by the ambiguous teaching and pastoral practice or recent times. The different interrelations and application of Amoris Laetitia is making this ever more apparent.
We have a situation, growing in intensity, in which, on the one hand many, clergy and laity are loyal and faithful to the pope as their pontiff, while critical of his pontificate, and, on the other hand, a contingent of the clergy and laity enthusiastically supporting Francis because he allows ambiguous teaching and ecclesial practice. And, probably, most Catholics in the middle left scratching their heads!
This is a good overview of what might lie ahead.
"Whether or not Francis intended the global synodal process to become a proxy vehicle for discussion of Church teaching on the nature of marriage, human sexuality, holy communion, and sacramental ordination, for many of its most vocal participants, it has."
But on that understanding, the Catholic Church will exist outside of communion with the Bishop of Rome. How would it then be different to, say, the original Church of England - which was, at the time of its institution, a hierarchy of validly ordained Catholic clerics without the authority of Rome.
DeleteWho has the authority to determine that SSPX are the arbitrators of whether a pope has 'supernatural faith' or not? Hierarchical obedience is the submission to one's overseers, not the demand that one is given everything one wants so that one validates the overseer's position. That sounds a little like blackmail to me.
@ Jack - yes, but there must come a point at which disputes about doctrine become a de facto schism. Being in communion isn't simply about sharing the common cup, it's a statement that one is aligned with the other's teachings (which is why the apostolic churches don't allow open communion). If I were, for example, a German or American Catholic, I don't think I would be able to communicate in the dioceses of some bishops because I would have fundamental disagreements with what they are teaching. If that happens on a large enough scale, then you have a schism whether it's recognised or not.
DeleteYes, HJ agrees and at some point a crunch-time may come. An Ecumenical Council may be the only way to sort this one. Its been coming sonce Vatican II. The Magisterium of Pope Francis - as expressed in Amoris Laetitia - would appear to be at odds with that of his two predecessors.
DeleteCan't a Council only be convened by the pope, though? If AL is at odds with established doctrine, then it doesn't form part of the Magisterium and this can surely simply be rectified by Francis' successor exercising his papal authority to amend the errors (unless a similar pope is elected, in which case he's hardly likely to convene a Council anyway). Either way, it would be a divisive act and would need to be accompanied by some pretty ruthless pruning.
Delete@Lain
DeleteI'm not sure what you're asking, but perhaps the way to see it is like this. The pope is not the Mormon prophet. He is not in receipt of ongoing revelation, as this one -- for all practical purposes -- seems to act. His job is analogous to a judge, to interpret that which has been given to him, not to make it up on the hoof. A judge can, in some circumstances, make new law from the bench, but that law must draw upon precedent and legal doctrine. Within that precedent, his authority may be absolute, but he cannot go outside it to pronounce new law. A judge cannot, for example, declare that someone convicted of murder need not serve a life sentence because it's the current year and we're all so liberal these days. Likewise, a pope cannot say second marriages are not adulterous because everyone's doing it these days and we need to get with the times. But that's what this pope is doing, so we either follow him or follow the sacred tradition that he's supposed to represent. It's an almost impossible choice for a loyal Catholic, but "almost" is not "absolutely". If we are in communion with someone who stands for nothing and appears to believe in nothing, what exactly ARE we in communion with?
I'm asking what the normative necessity is of being in communion with the Bishop of Rome if it's possible for the Church 'proper' to continue under the auspices of SSPX, should a schism occur.
DeleteThe Catholic Church is surely either the visible ecclesial body in communion with the pope (whether he's right or wrong), or it's an 'invisible church' that preserves adherence to some particular tradition. It seems to be that one cannot be in schism with Rome and (Roman) Catholic.
@ Lain
DeleteHJ was anticipating a decision to hold an EC by some future pope. Until then the Catholic Church will continue with its internal divisions.
One can but pray. My feeling is that this needs resolving sooner rather than later. As Ray said, there are already communities for whom the whole point is being outside the Church, and there are certain apostolates whose raison d'être seems to be being contra-Francis in everything. The longer these 'church within a church' identities are allowed to consolidate, the harder any future reconciliation will be.
DeleteWe need to keep in mind the quote by Newman at the end of the First Things article Bell linked to:
DeleteChristianity has been too often in what seemed deadly peril, that we should fear for it any new trial now. So far is certain; on the other hand, what is uncertain, and in these great contests commonly is uncertain, and what is commonly a great surprise, when it is witnessed, is the particular mode by which, in the event, Providence rescues and saves His elect inheritance. Sometimes our enemy is turned into a friend; sometimes he is despoiled of that special virulence of evil which was so threatening; sometimes he falls to pieces of himself; sometimes he does just so much as is beneficial, and then is removed.
Of course, and I've always said we need to be more trusting in God to sort his own out. But it does make me sad to see Churches acting like worldly politicians and Christians getting distracted by it at best, and led away from Christ at worst. There are many who think that yelling at people with opposing views on the internet about their own Church is doing God's work. It's a kind of ecclesial idolatry.
DeleteWe have the same problem in the OC - bashing everything the EP does is a full time job for some, some Greeks make a point of hating everything Russian and vice versa, and they both attack the Western Rite. That's partly why I try to stay away from the institutional side of the Church and stay in my own cave. I can't stand the white noise.
The New Testament is awash with warnings about the dangers of being deceived (carried off/away) by false teachings, trends, or the ways of this world. We are warned that are those who seek to confuse, to stun, and to carry off faithful Christians. Scripture also warns us against deceiving ourselves by entertaining lies and allowing ourselves to be entrapped by Satan and carried off by our own deceit.
DeleteIt is, but it's also full of grief for those who have been so deceived. We are called to discernment and solidarity in our own faith, but we are also called to lament 'how often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!'
Delete" ... but you were not willing!"
DeleteWe cooperate with the unmerited grace of God and, although this is not irresistible and salvation can be lost, persistence in the faith is also a grace from God that we can accept or resist - regardless of the deceptions of Satan. It's one of the mysteries of our faith.
I'm not saying we don't. I'm saying that faith isn't a one-person show. If worldly politics in the Church are distracting people from Christ, which I would argue that they are, then that should grieve us. As St. Paul says, 'I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren' - personally, I hold my own salvation as worthless if I'm not the 'last one out'.
DeleteYes, God will make all things well in the end, but until then it's incumbent on us to pray for those who are being turned from the Lord, especially if it's the Church that's doing the turning. That's not to say that we get drawn into partisan fuming and blog posts condemning the pope's breakfast, because that's a kind of ecclesial voyeurism that achieves nothing except to fall into the hands of the Adversary and move us away from living a Christlike life. Instead, like St. Dominic, we should be moved to weep and pray for those who are far from Christ, not just write them off as a mystery.
The Commemoration of the Living and the Dead in the Orthodox daily offices includes many prayers for the Church, including the petition that God 'calm the dissensions of the churches, quench the raging of the nations, and quickly destroy and uproot the rising of heresy, and bring them to nought by the power of Thy Holy Spirit.' Because the Church is constantly under attack, and these dangers are always present and need prayer.
Of course division and distraction is a source of grief and should we should pray for all souls who's faith is tested or, God forbid, lost as a result. However, we know we have a loving Father who forgives our failings that are not a deliberate, wilful turning away from Him.
Delete@Bell, I think there will always be a splinter group within the SSPX that will refuse to rejoin the Church. For them, staying out is the whole point. I don't attempt to keep up with the news about them, but a few years ago the splinter group even had a name that I can't remember offhand.
ReplyDeletePossibly you're thinking of the Society of St Pius V. I don't know anything about them. I don't actually know all that much about the SSPX except that they're...ahem...quite rigid about the magisterium of the Church. It's not just about the Latin mass with them.
DeleteI seem to recall that Pope B16 held several meetings with Bishop Fellay, who was then the head of the SSPX, and both of them subsequently made statements to the effect that the talks were going well and they were looking forward to concluding an agreement. In outline, the Church would extend full recognition to the SSPX in return for certain concessions. Coverage in the Catholic Herald and other publications made it clear, however, that Fellay didn’t have his membership fully on board. He could have brought maybe 80 or even 90 percent of his clergy with him, but in the end the rejectionist minority managed to torpedo the deal.
DeleteThe Jerusalem Post brings us some unexpected news from the Vatican, or possibly from the entertainment industry. Patriarch Pierbatista (sic) Pitzaballa (sic) has been created a carnival (sic).
ReplyDeletehttps://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-749951
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2023/07/cardinal-newman-archbishop-fernandez.html#more
ReplyDeleteThe above post from Edward Feser should clarify more than anything I've ever said exactly what the problem with Francis's pontificate is, and hopefully it will go some way to answering some of Lain's questions about communion with the pope. It's important to understand that Feser is not some mystical freakasaur wailing about the End of Days. If someone like him is writing in this way, there's a real problem.
I don't see where Feser addresses my query; if anything, the implication of the laity preserving the faith while even 'Pope Liberius temporarily caved' into quasi-heretical teachings is that communion with the pope is not a necessary condition of Catholicism. Unless communion is understood as a simply administrative exercise.
DeleteHJ thinks it is a helpful analysis in the sense that it suggests Pope Francis will permit ambiguous teachings and different 'pastoral' approaches without acting to clarify these or, importantly, formally teaching doctrinal error that is binding and thus requiring a breach of communion with him as pope:
Delete" ... the trend of Francis’s pontificate is precisely one of avoiding the clarification and qualification of theologically problematic statements."
One prays this is the worse it will get! It means a tough time lies ahead. If this thesis is correct, Pope Francis is failing in his duty to "lead" and "feed" the sheep. An alternative view is that by God's Providence, Pope Francis is a pope bringing the poison in the Church, around since Vatican II, to the surface.
Yes, Jack's analysis is correct; the article is effectively 'how do we cope with a bad pope?' and the answer is, as Jack says, that one must ride out the storm and trust that God will bring good from it.
DeleteThe question I'm asking Bell is based on his statement that the 'true' Catholic Church could continue with the likes of SSPX (whose canonical status is already a mess) should a schism and a severing of communion occur. I don't see that Catholic ecclesiology allows for the possibility of being Catholic outside of communion with the see of Rome (which is what the Anglo-Catholics and other 'true Catholic' splinter groups claim that they are, for example).
@ Lain.
DeleteYou are correct. One cannot be a Catholic outside of communion with the bishop of Rome.
There are so few faithful bishops left that when one does put his head above the parapet, it's a case of Vatican whack-a-mole. This article is a little flowery, but it's on point about the difficulty of staying in communion with a pope who doesn't seem to be in communion with the magisterium.
ReplyDeletehttps://crisismagazine.com/opinion/bishop-strickland-laying-his-life-down-for-his-sheep