Pope Francis on Blessing Homosexual Relationships - An Anglican Perspective.

The Rev. Ven Dr Edward Dowler, Archdeacon of Hastings, offers this commentary on the part of the Responsum related to the blessing of same-sex relationships. In marked contrast to many in the Catholic blogosphere, he concludes the response is both brief and clear, and that Pope Francis is not changing Church doctrine.

In the context of the current Synod on Synodality taking place in Rome, Pope Francis has responded to a series of five dubia or questions, submitted by a group of cardinals who are suspicious of what they see as liberalising trends in the Church.

Francis’s response to the second of these on the subject of same-sex unions has already been warmly welcomed by some high profile Anglican commentators as a ‘monumental’ development; indeed, the contention is that the Roman Catholic Church has now leap frogged over the Church of England into a more progressive position.

In reality, there would be an outcry if the Pope’s responses had been written by any bishop in the Church of England – indeed there already has been, when our bishops have made similar statements. Yet, Francis’s statement perhaps does point to an ecumenical way forward that combines theological clarity with compassion. The dubium and responses are reproduced below, with short glosses in italics from me, which attempt to explain some of their connotations in an English and Anglican context.

2. Dubium regarding the assertion that the widespread practice of blessing same-sex unions is in accordance with Revelation and the Magisterium (CCC 2357).

According to the Divine Revelation, attested in Sacred Scripture, which the Church teaches, “listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit” (Dei Verbum, 10), “In the beginning,” God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them, and blessed them to be fruitful (cf. Genesis 1:27-28) and hence, the Apostle Paul teaches that denying sexual difference is the consequence of denying the Creator (Romans 1:24-32). We ask: can the Church deviate from this “principle,” considering it, in contrast to what was taught in Veritatis splendor, 103, as a mere ideal, and accept as a “possible good” objectively sinful situations, such as unions with persons of the same sex, without departing from the revealed doctrine?

Pope Francis’s Response to the Second Dubium

a. The Church has a very clear understanding of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to procreation. Only this union can be called “marriage.” Other forms of union realize it only in “a partial and analogous way” (Amoris Laetitia 292), so they cannot be strictly called “marriage.”

[Comment: There is a clear understanding of what marriage is in the Bible and the Christian tradition. Other forms of union may have some similarity to marriage, but they are not marriage.]

b. It is not just a matter of names, but the reality we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that requires an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal.”

[Comment: Church teaching is that male/female marriage is a ‘thing’: an actual institution that exists in the lives of men and women, and does not just a distant ideal that we may strive for, or a malleable concept that can be redescribed.]

c. For this reason, the Church avoids any type of rite or sacramental that might contradict this conviction and suggest that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.

[Comment: In the UK context, this indicates that the Pope might accept civil partnerships as legal and social arrangements between people, but emphasises that they should not be celebrated in such a way as to make it seem as though they are marriage in the proper sense.]

d. However, in our relationships with people, we must not lose the pastoral charity, which should permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defence of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity; it also includes kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot be judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.

[Comment: Charity (love) is of course always of prime importance in any discussion of human relationships. Part of charity is to speak the objective truth (i.e., that marriage is a ‘thing’ as per points a and b) but speaking objective truth cannot be the whole – the sum total – of a charitable response, which also must include an understanding and compassionate approach to people’s individual circumstances.]

e. Therefore, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey a mistaken concept of marriage. For when a blessing is requested, it is expressing a plea to God for help, a supplication to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us live better.

[Comment: So long as a ‘mistaken concept of marriage’ is not implied, pastors should be free to bless and pray with their people in different circumstances. This is a matter for their prudential judgment as, together with people who have approached us, we place our trust in God to guide and help us.]

f. On the other hand, although there are situations that are not morally acceptable from an objective point of view, the same pastoral charity requires us not to simply treat as “sinners” other people whose guilt or responsibility may be mitigated by various factors affecting subjective accountability (Cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et paenitentia, 17).

[Comment: In the document that is referenced, John Paul II acknowledges that ‘there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint and which have an influence on the sinner’s subjective culpability’. The teaching here is a nuanced one: on the one hand, moral standards have an objective quality, and yet the experienced fact of what we call ‘sexual orientation’ (surely one of the ‘complex and obscure’ factors to which JPII refers) can mitigate behaviour that seems to fall short of those standards. In a nutshell, same-sex relationships should not be viewed in a simplistic way as just ‘sin’.]

g. Decisions that may be part of pastoral prudence in certain circumstances should not necessarily become a norm. That is, it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops’ Conference, or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially enable procedures or rituals for all kinds of matters, because not everything that “is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances can be elevated to the level of a rule” as this “would lead to an intolerable casuistry” (Amoris laetitia, 304). Canon law should not and cannot cover everything, nor should Episcopal Conferences with their varied documents and protocols claim to do so, as the life of the Church flows through many channels other than normative ones.

[Comment: Individual decisions of pastors, acting compassionately in particular circumstances are one thing (as per point e above), but this does not mean that the Church, or individual provinces within it, should publish prayers, rituals and protocols, etc. that may then be seen as being normative (i.e., setting a norm for everybody else). In Church of England terms, this would be a strong preference for more informal and ad hoc pastoral and liturgical responses rather than published prayers, including Prayers of Love and Faith.]

In conclusion, a striking point is that, although there are complex areas here and some nuanced language (see particularly point f) the brevity and clarity of these five responses stands in marked contrast not only to the reams of material that have been produced in the LLF process, but also to the idea that difficulties can be solved by further committees, conversations, ‘workstreams’ and heavy process. Might we perhaps have something to learn from this?