The Apostolic See has released a new document, a declaration by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith approved by Pope Francis, titled: Fiducia Supplicans. Excerpts follow:
[Intro:]
“It is precisely in this context that one can understand the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage.”
4. Pope Francis’ recent response to the second of the five questions posed by two Cardinals[4] offers an opportunity to explore this issue further, especially in its pastoral implications. It is a matter of avoiding that “something that is not marriage is being recognized as marriage.”[5] Therefore, rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage—which is the “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children”[6]—and what contradicts it are inadmissible. This conviction is grounded in the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage; it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning. The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm.
5. This is also the understanding of marriage that is offered by the Gospel. For this reason, when it comes to blessings, the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion. Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.
6. It should be emphasized that in the Rite of the Sacrament of Marriage, this concerns not just any blessing but a gesture reserved to the ordained minister. In this case, the blessing given by the ordained minister is tied directly to the specific union of a man and a woman, who establish an exclusive and indissoluble covenant by their consent. This fact allows us to highlight the risk of confusing a blessing given to any other union with the Rite that is proper to the Sacrament of Marriage.
19. In his mystery of love, through Christ, God communicates to his Church the power to bless. Granted by God to human beings and bestowed by them on their neighbors, the blessing is transformed into inclusion, solidarity, and peacemaking. It is a positive message of comfort, care, and encouragement. The blessing expresses God’s merciful embrace and the Church’s motherhood, which invites the faithful to have the same feelings as God toward their brothers and sisters.
26. In this perspective, the Holy Father’s Respuestas aid in expanding the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 2021 pronouncement from a pastoral point of view. For, the Respuestas invite discernment concerning the possibility of “forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey an erroneous conception of marriage”[17] and, in situations that are morally unacceptable from an objective point of view, account for the fact that “pastoral charity requires us not to treat simply as ‘sinners’ those whose guilt or responsibility may be attenuated by various factors affecting subjective imputability.”
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.
39. In any case, precisely to avoid any form of confusion or scandal, when the prayer of blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation, even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding. The same applies when the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple.
40. Such a blessing may instead find its place in other contexts, such as a visit to a shrine, a meeting with a priest, a prayer recited in a group, or during a pilgrimage. Indeed, through these blessings that are given not through the ritual forms proper to the liturgy but as an expression of the Church’s maternal heart—similar to those that emanate from the core of popular piety—there is no intention to legitimize anything, but rather to open one’s life to God, to ask for his help to live better, and also to invoke the Holy Spirit so that the values of the Gospel may be lived with greater faithfulness.
41. What has been said in this Declaration regarding the blessings of same-sex couples is sufficient to guide the prudent and fatherly discernment of ordained ministers in this regard. Thus, beyond the guidance provided above, no further responses should be expected about possible ways to regulate details or practicalities regarding blessings of this type.
43. The Church is thus the sacrament of God’s infinite love. Therefore, even when a person’s relationship with God is clouded by sin, he can always ask for a blessing, stretching out his hand to God, as Peter did in the storm when he cried out to Jesus, “Lord, save me!” (Mt. 14:30).
================
My Comments
My opinion is that this decision of the Holy Father might turn out to be imprudent. I hope for the best response to this declaration. But I’m concerned that some sinners will use this permission to speak and act as if couples in irregular situations (e.g. divorced/remarried; same-sex couples) have now had their relationships approved by the Church. I’m concerned that liberal parishes will use this blessing to promote the approval for grave sin of various kinds. For we know that even the text of holy Scripture is often misused by sinners for their own purposes.
The document was clear in saying:
* “the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice”
* “the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex”
However, sinners will often distort the teachings and disciplines of the Church. The decision to allow blessings on persons in irregular situations is of discipline, not doctrine; it is changeable. If it turns out to be imprudent, Pope Francis, or a future Pope, can change the practice or do away with it.
However, nothing in this decision by Pope Francis contradicts the teaching of the Church on faith or morals. And the declaration clearly states that such blessings must not be considered to be equivalent to marriage, nor to constitute approval for grave sin. Rather, this is the Church giving blessings to sinners, just as Jesus blessed the Samaritan woman by staying in her town and, by providence and grace, making her a way to announce Jesus to her neighbors. She held false ideas about religion. The Samaritans practiced an altered version of Judaism. She was in an irregular relationship. But Jesus did not reject her, nor refuse to work through her.
[John 4]
{4:1} And so, when Jesus realized that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made more disciples and baptized more than John,
{4:2} (though Jesus himself was not baptizing, but only his disciples)
{4:3} he left behind Judea, and he traveled again to Galilee.
{4:4} Now he needed to cross through Samaria.
{4:5} Therefore, he went into a city of Samaria which is called Sychar, near the estate which Jacob gave to his son Joseph.
{4:6} And Jacob’s well was there. And so Jesus, being tired from the journey, was sitting in a certain way on the well. It was about the sixth hour.
{4:7} A woman of Samaria arrived to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give me to drink.”
{4:8} For his disciples had gone into the city in order to buy food.
{4:9} And so, that Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, being a Jew, are requesting a drink from me, though I am a Samaritan woman?” For the Jews do not associate with the Samaritans.
{4:10} Jesus responded and said to her: “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who is saying to you, ‘Give me to drink,’ perhaps you would have made a request of him, and he would have given you living water.”
{4:11} The woman said to him: “Lord, you do not have anything with which to draw water, and the well is deep. From where, then, do you have living water?
{4:12} Surely, you are not greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and who drank from it, with his sons and his cattle?”
{4:13} Jesus responded and said to her: “All who drink from this water will thirst again. But whoever shall drink from the water that I will give to him will not thirst for eternity.
{4:14} Instead, the water that I will give to him will become in him a fountain of water, springing up into eternal life.”
{4:15} The woman said to him, “Lord, give me this water, so that I may not thirst and may not come here to draw water.”
{4:16} Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and return here.”
{4:17} The woman responded and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her: “You have spoken well, in saying, ‘I have no husband.’
{4:18} For you have had five husbands, but he whom you have now is not your husband. You have spoken this in truth.”
{4:19} The woman said to him: “Lord, I see that you are a Prophet.
{4:20} Our fathers worshipped on this mountain, but you say that Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.”
{4:21} Jesus said to her: “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you shall worship the Father, neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem.
{4:22} You worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know. For salvation is from the Jews.
{4:23} But the hour is coming, and it is now, when true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeks such persons who may worship him.
{4:24} God is Spirit. And so, those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.”
{4:25} The woman said to him: “I know that the Messiah is coming (who is called the Christ). And then, when he will have arrived, he will announce everything to us.”
{4:26} Jesus said to her: “I am he, the one who is speaking with you.”
{4:27} And then his disciples arrived. And they wondered that he was speaking with the woman. Yet no one said: “What are you seeking?” or, “Why are you talking with her?”
{4:28} And so the woman left behind her water jar and went into the city. And she said to the men there:
{4:29} “Come and see a man who has told me all the things that I have done. Is he not the Christ?”
{4:30} Therefore, they went out of the city and came to him.
{4:31} Meanwhile, the disciples petitioned him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.”
{4:32} But he said to them, “I have food to eat which you do not know.”
{4:33} Therefore, the disciples said to one another, “Could someone have brought him something to eat?”
{4:34} Jesus said to them: “My food is to do the will of the One who sent me, so that I may perfect his work.
{4:35} Do you not say, ‘There are still four months, and then the harvest arrives?’ Behold, I say to you: Lift up your eyes and look at the countryside; for it is already ripe for the harvest.
{4:36} For he who reaps, receives wages and gathers fruit unto eternal life, so that both he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together.
{4:37} For in this the word is true: that it is one who sows, and it is another who reaps.
{4:38} I have sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labors.”
{4:39} Now many of the Samaritans from that city believed in him, because of the word of the woman who was offering testimony: “For he told me all the things that I have done.”
{4:40} Therefore, when the Samaritans had come to him, they petitioned him to lodge there. And he lodged there for two days.
{4:41} And many more believed in him, because of his own word.
{4:42} And they said to the woman: “Now we believe, not because of your speech, but because we ourselves have heard him, and so we know that he is truly the Savior of the world.”
{4:43} Then, after two days, he departed from there, and he traveled into Galilee.
the reproach of Christ 
The homosexual issue should not be overdramatized. First of all, pope Francis didn’t endorse the gay marriage, just the opposite is clearly seen in his words (to the dismay to the millions wayward catholics who hoped for it). That being said, one should look at the question broader and in all nearly 2000 history of the Church. It is simply not true that the homosexuality appeared in 20th century. It existed always. And it exists at some level at every catholic family if you have eyes to see, in different stages of development of the kids who therefore should be directed carefully as whether to pursue religious vocation or married lifestyle. Commands and overjudgment can bring only more harm, if you didn’t realize it already.
As archbishop of Buenos Aires then cardinal Bergoglio endorsed the state legislation of civil unions, exactly for the same reason – to substitute the gay marriage, while giving legal protection to the de facto gay couples.
We have to accept the fact that there are people, millions of them, who have chosen to live together in these relations. It is their choice. The Church wisely had decided throughout the centuries and DECIDES TODAY that these people DO BELONG TO THE CHURCH and are not excommunicated, condemned, anathematized…or burned on stakes. As the Church teaching tells us, they are called for repentance and salvation in Jesus Christ, to unite their sufferings to His Wounds, that assumes their sufferings are no less rather more than those of the married couples of man and woman. How can we judge them and not for example adulterous women (and men) who make abortion after abortion after abortion…even within the frame of a catholic family blessed in the church in lawful catholic marriage! How about our young ladies not married yet who DO HAVE SEX as we know well for a fact, and who take the pill after in the morning, and then go to Holy Communion? Theoretically their bodies could make the abortion as a result of the pill during or after receiving the Holy Communion. They can no less go to hell should they not repent.
Historic perspective:
How about the millions monks throughout history who have chosen to live together with their brothers or sisters, and not to make a marriage of one man with one woman? Are you going to tell me they all lived a chaste lifestyle? The saints among them, yes! Many of them, no. We know it for a historical fact. Read St Bernard’s rule to find out what prescriptions he gave to the gay men (many of them crusaders) in the orders of his time. I will not write it because I realize some will be scandalized, however we must open our eyes for the historical facts that would surpass even our imagination and will sound much more brazen than let say a soup opera. Compared to what pope Francis has decided in his prudence as a measured ruling for the time being.
Could the question of gay people who want to be inside the Church be therefore resolved in a similar way? Could all those men and women become members of a newly created religious order? It wouldn’t differ much from the Middle ages from all we know about.
Should we talk of popes who themselves had unlawful relations with both men and women, such as Benedict IX and Alexander VI besides others?
The over judgment of the current situation will bring more harm than help to the already embattled Church. Whether the next pope will reverse this and other decisions of pope Francis, remains to be seen in the near future. We and the world have bigger problems right now than judging the gays practically outcast them from the Church of our own likes. We have much bigger problems. Wasn’t the abortion the biggest issue of morality? In other words, we may not be alive after 5 years when after the world war the next pope will decide on this and other issues.
Let me give a brief historical review, so we are not shocked by what pope Francis is doing that is actually very measured. He is mitigating the situation with everything possible, to the fierce opposition of BOTH sides.
Pope Julius III (1550-1555). While still Cardinal Giovanni Maria del Monte, the pontiff fell in love with a 15-year old named Innocenzo. Two years later del Monte, now Pope, made Innocenzo a cardinal and his “chief diplomatic and political agent.” Though Church scholars insist that Julius interest in Innocenzo was strictly platonic.
Other popes with gay preferences were: John XII (955-964), Benedict IX (1033-1045; 1047-1048), John XXII (1316-1334), Paul II (1464-1471), Sixtus IV (1471-1484), Julius II (1503-1513), Leo X (1513-1521). I don’t want to write what is known for some of them in shocking details.
Let not close our eyes that the homosexual tendencies in the Church exist today as well as in the past, on all levels, even if only platonic (without the acts). Whether they lead to sexual acts or not, and how often that happens in a Catholic prelate’s lifetime (if it happened only once in the past, or if it happens on a weekly even daily basis) only God knows. The confession is still protected by its unbroken seal and I hope that to continue. Some are dismissed from their high rank positions for unlawful sexual conduct, such as cardinal O’Brien. Many others don’t break any state law with their acts (for example not with minors etc). The Church in her prudence and grace given by God has decided those many more cases not involving breaking of civil law to stay covered and absolved in the confession. We are not appointed judges by God, by pope, by anyone. God is the sole judge.
I believe that if pope Francis couldn’t find the right formula as of now for the millions of gay people in the Church who want to continue staying in the Church, then his successor will. St Bernard who assured the survival of Christendom at that time by mobilizing the Christian Catholic military strength according to the pressing issues of that century, cannot be accused of supporting adulterous lifestyle that leads to hell.
Please be careful not to treat every accusation made against Popes from long ago as if it were fact. Popes were often involved in political controversies, and it was not uncommon in those days to accuse someone of various sins or crimes due to political animosity.
“These people” or any people belong to the Church that our Redeemer founded only if the repent and are baptized. All of us in the Church are expected to sustain this union with Jesus, in and through his Church. We cannot do it our own way or pick and choose what we like from the teachings. Jesus had harsh words to say about those who are lukewarm.
We should not only make everyone realize that they are loved but that the state of their souls are also important. This applies to all people without exception.
Ron, I believe the solution is simple. The symbolic gesture should be clearly different between the liturgical (sacramental) blessing and a pastoral one. The first one should remain the same, but the Pastoral one should just a prayer led by the priest in the usual way with his arms open wide – as in the “let us pray” during Mass. This prayer should be a plea for healing and for God’s grace to help the receiver accept Jesus and his teachings.
A homosexual couple, or a scandalous couple known to have left their spouses due to adultery, walk up to the Priest, after Mass, while holding hands, and ask for a blessing. Around the Priest, are a number of parishioners are waiting for blessings. What does a Catholic Priest do or how does he bless the couple, due to this new discipline? He will be in earshot of other parishioners.
I think priests can still use their own judgment as cases that might cause scandal or confusion are excluded from the permission to give blessings.
The problem could be solved by eliminating the symbolic gesture of blessing when dealing with non-married regular couples. Using the same gesture for two totally different blessings is confusing. Just a simple “Let us pray” (Oremus) gesture followed by a prayer to help healing and a better awareness of God’s infinite love for us would be just as fine – without causing confusion.
The high points are in numbers 38, 39, and 40.
38. For this reason, one should neither provide for nor promote a ritual for the blessings of couples in an irregular situation. At the same time, one should not prevent or prohibit the Church’s closeness to people in every situation in which they might seek God’s help through a simple blessing. 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.
39. In any case, precisely to avoid any form of confusion or scandal, when the prayer of blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation, even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding. The same applies when the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple.
40. Such a blessing may instead find its place in other contexts, such as a visit to a shrine, a meeting with a priest, a prayer recited in a group, or during a pilgrimage. Indeed, through these blessings that are given not through the ritual forms proper to the liturgy but as an expression of the Church’s maternal heart—similar to those that emanate from the core of popular piety—there is no intention to legitimize anything, but rather to open one’s life to God, to ask for his help to live better, and also to invoke the Holy Spirit so that the values of the Gospel may be lived with greater faithfulness.
Ron,
Yes, I agree the liberal class will twist and utilize Fiducia Supplicans to their advantage.
The simple truth is all blessings are for the people not sin. The document clearly states this fact. Unfortunately, most Catholics do not take the time to read and fully comprehend the Fiducia Supplicans. They rather read captions from the media and form their opinions. When the news broke on Pope Francis’ declaration, all Catholic comments that I have read have stated Pope Francis has erred in his thought process.
We live in dangerous times where the truth continues to be distorted.
Ron, the example you give is between Christ and the Samaritan woman.
The Pope is allowing a blessing of a couple in an irregular relationship. Bad optics.
The Priest should instead bless one of them at a time and the couple not standing together.
Amoris Laetitia and the blessings question pertain more broadly to irregular situations, not only to same-sex couples. The issue is the relationship between the Church and sinners who commit the same sins repeatedly, or who are spiritually/temporally, in a sense, trapped in a type of sin. The Church does not sin by allowing such sinners to approach Communion, after Confession preferably; or by giving blessings to sinners. Jesus did not require the Samaritan woman to give up her wrong ideas about religion, or to give up her not-husband; He simply put her on the path to greater faith and to greater holiness, without requiring immediate success in overcoming these objective sins.
I do think that this decision by the Pope might cause too many problems, mainly due to some priests and a few bishops being willing to use it as an excuse for things the Pope has not approved. Then a future Pope will do away with this decision of discipline.
in relation with my comment: Just a few seconds ago, the Social Media and Press started to distort the news…this are the titles of some publications on internet:
“The Pope relents and accepts the blessing of homosexual couples”.
“What this is, is a very serious affront against God. What is abominable to God remains abominable and this pair of apostates seek to change the will of God. They both make you nauseous, Tucho and Bergoglio”.
The next is from the NYT (Only Headline)
“Pope francis allows priests to bless same sex relationships”
And many many other comments, but must of people will not make further investigation, they will take the headlines as the relevant news and take it as a fact without distinctions made…has happended in the past is happening now…we must be well informed, so keep posting Mr Conte , is very important.
Thanks
These blessings are not on the relationship or the union, but on the persons. It is a fine distinction that is lost on many persons. We will see whether this decision works out well or not.
Mr Conte, once I heard a priest said that the same sex couples could not receive a blessing because as they live in sin. and sin cannot be blessed. Could you please comment about this, I am confused. On the other hand I almost can guarantee this action will be misinterpreted by the press, media and some homosexual couples will take this as a confirmation they can continue living in that condition (with intimate relations ) and have no problem because they can be blessed its ok to continue in the same way. The media will not make any particular differences, they will post this news as a general approve…and this will increase the confusion among catholics, the conservative wing will acuse Pope Francis and the liberal wing will applaude and ask for more (if they can be blessed why not authorize marriage?) despite the document is clear about that cannot be, I think a new storm is coming for the Pope. Regards.
I agree that this decision is imprudent and likely will not stand for long. Perhaps the very next Pope will reverse a few of Pope Francis’ decisions on discipline, and clarify some of his teachings on doctrine.
As for this question “they live in sin, and sin cannot be blessed.” It is only persons who are being blessed. Jesus blessed the whole of humanity with his salvific death on the Cross; while we were yet sinners, He died for us. Grace to convert from grave sin is prevenient, and then subsequent. So the grace is given while we are yet sinning gravely and unrepentant. Prevenient grace is given first, prompting us to change, and then we can subsequently cooperate with grace. So even a type of grace, prevenient grace, is given to sinners necessarily before they repent. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with blessing unrepentant sinners. But the blessing is on the person, to help them to change and give up sin.
Surely the church cant bring the sin of sodom into church practice – the ruins of the 4 cities are still there to this day . To bless sin like this is not love but deception .
Flaming fire is what the NT promises for this sin which cries out from heaven .
Ron you’re over the top with your explanation. We do not have to lose common sense.
male/male female/female and indeed unmarried male/female sexual relationships are illicit
To try to parse out the “love” to “Bless” these relationships is both disingenuous and ridiculous.
The Church had nearly 2,000 years experience with that kind of sin and behavior. Nobody is ” bringing the sin of sodom into church practice ” as you put it. The homosexual tendencies exist in the life of millions of good standing Catholics and also priests and nuns throughout the centuries and also today. Those are people who confess and receive Holy Communion on a regular basis. (notice the homosexual tendencies without the acts are not even sins according to the doctrine).
The Church had introduced different measures as how to deal with that fact of life among not just a small number of people, and with some of them being among the most devote faithful throughout the centuries. I suggest that the introduction of celibacy for the Latin clergy and the monastic lifestyle throughout the ancient Church in both the Latin and the Eastern rites was the best course of action at that time. Not that everyone who enters priesthood is homosexual, but everyone who enters priesthood (or a nun) actually does not want to marry and frankly DOES NOT LIKE GIRLS IN FIRST PLACE. Even if they never ever sinned one way or another. Just prove me wrong! Do you know boys who want to study for priests? Ask them do they like girls.
You have the homosexual people who want to serve God throughout the ages. You don’t kill them, you don’t ban them, you don’t expel them from the borders of once Christian empire and kingdoms, for the fact of life they do not like women (respectively men) and therefore they will NEVER MAKE A FAMILY OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. The Church has decided before and continues to decide TODAY that these men and women are integral part of her flock. Instead of banning them, the Church wisely and prudently made their life POSSIBLE (without pushing them into despair and possibly even suicide), and even made their life to bringing abundant fruits in serving God and the neighbor. The Church admitted them in monastic convents, orders, you name it. The greatest saints were not married “One man to one woman”… Are we just as much blind and fanatical in our biased judgment as to reject 2000 years practice of the Church? More could be said for certain, I just don’t have the time for it. Nobody pays me for it.
Look at the historic records of intense friendships between major saints. They never touched each other. But they loved each other. It is recorded. Saints Basil the Great and St Gregory of Nazianzus, St Anthony the Great (the establisher of the Eastern monastic life) and St Athanasius of Alexandria. In more modern time we have the friendship between St Thomas Aquinas and St Bonaventura. And many countless friendships that go unknown to public life even as we speak who make the most of their lives together in communities.
Now it is a new time for revival of the Church as the great saints did in the past. Not everyone is a saint, actually none of us reading here is probably a walking saint, but all are called to sainthood. And that road continues all life. You can’t say you have achieved it, not until you die, and it is God who says who achieved it and who will have to make it the harder way in purgatory for unknown number of earthly years…That should suffice for the consciences of those overzealous die-hard catholic “judges” to know that the sinners will burn in deepest purgatory for years even centuries…and please DON’T BURN THEM TODAY WHILE THEY ARE STILL ALIVE AND CAN BECOME GREATER SAINT THAN YOU!
Romans 5:20 NKJV
Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more
Just prove me wrong, please! Whoever is without sin let he throw the first stone against her, said Jesus himself. Because all those model catholic families some of them have such atrocities inside that is hard to even speak of it. Just prove me wrong with facts from history or today, OK? Before condemning as sodomite what pope Francis is trying to do to his best abilities, and most bishops approve it so far.
I don’t agree that priests lack attraction to the opposite sex. Some priests are lawfully married in the East, and a few in the West. Some priests, sadly, choose to leave the priesthood and then marry with Church permission.
I guess you have to say that, Ron. I personally know two priests who abandoned priesthood and married. And I know at least two others who were homosexual. These are not percentages, these are observations and public secrets within parishes I have been to.
We need to tone it down and let the time show how it unfolds. Remember Amoris Laetitia fury? What happened? Nothing extraordinary. The countries Germany, Austria, Belgium, others, where the people in second marriages were allowed to Holy Communion before Amoris Laetitia, continued to do so without trumping it around the world. The countries who did not do that before, continued to not do that after, again silently not trumping they are against Amoris Laetitia or the pope. I expect something similar now. Nobody can stop the German priests to bless whatever if they were blessing it already before the document. And I doubt anyone can force the more traditional priests in more traditional dioceses to do so, even at the gunpoint, as we already see from the reaction of some bishops. Shall we see banned priests as a result? I doubt it too. And this is a friendly filial warning for them too- let not overhype it, because we need your service in the Church beyond the current overheated moment.
Overhyping of the whole issue comes to blind us for the real issues that concern us directly. We will not convert those how many millions of gay people by doing so, neither can we ban them from churches in Germany or in liberal dioceses in USA to be blessed personally. We cannot ban them being blessed or continue living together or doing civil ceremonies. So, why the hype then? Did we just discover a new dwelling of the devil in the closet, after we were satisfied with Roe vs Wade result? Are the two issues even comparable? Is the anathematizing of the gays and the priests who bless them bring any betterment to our own condition, our own conversion process, or to the conversion of the world? To the conversion of Russia for example that we all say we want? Can’t we just do our own silent work of good Catholics with frequent confessions and daily love and service of God and neighbor? isn’t the Catholic Church suffering exactly because that lacks in the majority, because the Love will grow cold as Jesus said?
We are not judges. There is the Vatican. I think the Vatican is wrong in the entire approach to the issue, as I argued until now. Because Rome (even before they called it Vatican) dealt with the issue for long long centuries, and dealt with it quite successfully. We would not have the current Christendom culture and even the very existence of countries ruled by catholic laws, without those brave and self- sacrificing men and women who dedicated their entire lives not making a family of One man and one woman. Regardless of how we will call them now centuries later.
The Vatican knows the history as well as today’s situation. That for example cardinal O’Brien is not the only one to sin. He simply overpassed the civil law and norms with young adult priests under his jurisdiction, and as result was banned from voting in the conclave. How many more didn’t overstep any civil law? We can’t just throw stones around. Whoever is without sin let he throw the first stone. Because it is like a boomerang that we will discover tomorrow in our own families when our own teens will declare one day they are going to live with their partner and that partner would appear to be from the same sex. Every overjudgment, even if correct in essence, is wrong in performance, and in many cases brings the opposite result. Just imagine the reaction of the powerful gay lobbies when even the VERY MEASURED BLESSINGS allowed by the pope are met with such a hostility at local places. I don’t want to elaborate on that now, Now it seems that the biggest proponents of the blessing within the Catholic Church and outside accept it as a temporal score while they are not satisfied with it.
The most wrong thing the Church had in her complicated history is obviously the Inquisition. And yet not even the Inquisition burned the gays, rather restricted itself to the open heresies that in some cases reached the level of armed rebellions (and I stress – only in some cases – the rest need the repentance of the Church officials today for the past wrongdoings of their predecessors, we need their clear example and lead in the process of conversion that we are all called to). Are we going to burn the gay people today spiritually? Don’t we see soon we all will be burned if we don’t do something to stop the war?
Just watch the last movie produced by Obamas Leave the world behind – one of the many on similar topic, but definitely the first one by former US president. Regardless of its quality, we were warned now by a former president. We are at the brink.
And all we need now is to spend our energy and resources to condemn the gays and the priests who bless them?
OK let they go to hell or purgatory if God judges them so – how that changes my situation? How that make me any holier in the eyes of God? Did God give me mandate for judgment instead of Him? Sadly I know some ultra conservatives who would answer affirmatively and would say they must warn the sinners, etc, that the devil enters the Church and they cannot allow it…
I will repeat it for the last time – nothing NEW entered the Church now. Because even if half or less of all the monks in the past had been gay in their minds (and I bet the percentage is rather higher), they all were being blessed everyday on every Holy mass they devotedly attended, and blessed solemnly during their vows to live in poverty, obedience and chastity, together with their brothers/sisters and served God and the Church to the extend so we have the Church developed the way it is. They were absolved in countless confessions (maybe weekly, maybe more often, living secluded life in a monastery) for the sins against their vows particularly chastity. Nobody stopped them from Holy Communion, let alone casting them outside or burning them. Are we bigger Inquisitors today?
The question should be dealt differently from today’s cultural perspective of either approval or denial.
And we should always remember the words of Jesus that will concern us on our own judgment day that may come in just 30 minutes in a flash:
“with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.”
this is my last comment on the topic, unless some new development comes.
Pope Francis has reached out to many sinners, with great leniency and mercy. But God’s mercy is not to be abused. For a time, sinners can approach the Church and receive blessings, confession, communion. But I believe the next Pope will next say, “show the fruits of repentance”. He will require Catholics to believe and practice the Catholic Faith, and this leniency will end. A strict discpline will be imposed.