There has been a big reaction in Catholic media to the decision of Pope Francis allowing blessings for same-sex couples, divorced and remarried persons, and others in “irregular” situations. It is not wrong to bless anyone. As I said previously in a comment to a comment:
As for this question “they live in sin, and sin cannot be blessed.” It is only persons who are being blessed, not sin. 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, without cooperation, prompting us to change, and then we can subsequently cooperate with grace. So there is a fundamental type of grace, prevenient grace, that is given to sinners necessarily before they have an opportunity to 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.
If someone argues that the blessing is on the relationship, I would say that an irregular relationship (any unmarried couple living in sin; divorced/remarried; same-sex couples) can be blessed if there is anything good in that relationship, despite objectively grave sin. Recall the advice of Jesus:
[Matthew]
{10:11} Now, into whatever city or town you will enter, inquire as to who is worthy within it. And stay there until you depart.
{10:12} Then, when you enter into the house, greet it, saying, ‘Peace to this house.’
{10:13} And if, indeed, that house is worthy, your peace will rest upon it. But if it is not worthy, your peace will return to you.
A priest charitably assumes that anyone asking for a blessing, though a sinner, has good in them and in their lives; the same for any relationship. Saint Augustine, before he converted, lived with a woman out of wedlock and had a child by her. Blessings are for sinners. A blessing on a relationship — which I don’t think is actually specified by the document — still makes sense in that the priest is blessing whatever is good, and the blessing seeks to amend anything that is sinful. (I’m not sure if it is prudent to bless relationships; I’m considering the case that some are discussing, saying that priests will use the document’s permission to bless irregular relationships.)
However, if the persons asking for a blessing on themselves or even on their relationship are obstinately unrepentant from grave sin, and are not really asking for God to guide and help them to live a holier or more moral life; if they instead ask for a blessing to use it as a claim that their sins are approved by the priest, or to affect the opinion of others about them, or other sinful or foolish intentions, then the blessing is like blessing of peace described by Christ. It does not have a good effect if the persons are not worthy. And this is what the Church has always taught about sacramentals — the effect depends upon the faith of the individual and their cooperation with grace. It is not the case that every blessing from a priest will bear fruit. God offers, but He respects our free will.
Notice that Jesus says “if, indeed, that house is worthy”. He speaks of a house, not of an individual. So this blessing of peace could be on any number of persons living in that house; some might be living in sin, like the Samaritan woman. The blessing could include their relationships as true husband and wife, or family relationships. There might be some sinfulness in those relationships. But as Jesus says, if the house is not worthy, “your peace will return to you” — the blessing will not be harmed, nor does it participate in sin. The blessing simply does not have the good effect intended by the person who blesses.
What if Pope Francis ordains women deacons?
If the reaction to blessings for same-sex couples (as the media phrases it) seems substantial, such a decision by a Pope would cause an immense reaction. Many Catholics and former Catholics are already “sensitized”, so to speak, by their own problems with Francis’ past decisions on doctrine and discipline. So they would overreact to a great extent, if that happens.
Unfortunately, such a decision might make the current schism in the Church so much worse that the schismatics — who currently still attend Mass and receive the Sacraments — will break away entirely and try to form a new Church, which they will claim is the true Church. Right now, those who refuse submission to Pope Francis (not merely those who disagree with some of his decisions) are still trying to remain faithful to the Church. They may well be in the state of grace; some of them are not formal schismatics, as their schism is material only. Ordaining women deacons would set in motion a shockwave through the Church, unfortunately causing opponents of Pope Francis to break communion with the Apostolic See and the body of Bishops.
It may be the case (in my opinion it is the case) that the Church has the authority to ordain women to the diaconate only, not to the priesthood. To ordain deaconesses, the Pope would need to teach that the Church has the authority to ordain women only to the diaconate. Such a teaching would likely need to be under Papal Infallibility, otherwise the reaction against the decision would rely on the possibility of error in non-infallible teachings to oppose this. But Papal Infallibility would force the hand of the papal opponents, leaving them no options other than the obedience of faith or to accuse the Pope of being an invalid heretical Pope, with no authority to use papal infallibility. This scenario could happen. I do not look forward to so many souls, weak in faith, being pushed out of the Church by this challenge to their faith.
Another scenario is also possible: the Pope could approve of non-ordained women deacons. The Church has undeniably had non-ordained deaconesses in the past. This cannot be said to be heretical. It would be an act of discipline, not teaching. But once there are deaconesses approved and installed throughout the Church, the Pope could then teach that women can be ordained as deacons, and the previously installed non-ordained deaconesses could next be ordained. In what would seem like an instant, the Church would have ordained deaconesses everywhere.
Either way, the reaction is going to be catastrophic for the opponents of Pope Francis, who will have a very hard time accepting such a decision, even if it is issued under Papal Infallibility.
Ronald L Conte Jr
the reproach of Christ 
Hi Ron, I am interested to hear your response to some of the claims regarding papal infallibility in this article, if you’re so inclined: https://open.substack.com/pub/commonman/p/catholics-needs-orthodoxy.
The author is a faithful traditionalist who does not oppose or vilify the pope, but I’m not quite sure what to make of his interpretation of magisterial authority or papal infallibility, and I don’t know enough to reach any firm conclusions. It seems he goes a bit too far but in general I’m sympathetic to the thrust of his argument.
Ignore that article. It is patently false, and expresses a very poor theological understanding on the magisterium. The teaching of Vatican I on papal infallibility is a definition. It is a formal definition. Theologians agree that Vatican I teaches and Vatican II reiterates the criteria which need to be met for a teaching of the Pope to be infallible. So the author is badly misinformed. Then his claim that outside of infallibility, Popes can err to any extent, contradicts the dogmas of the indefectibility of the Church and the charism of truth and never-failing faith.
I wish people would stop labeling certain persons as “faithful” and on that basis claiming that their every assertion should be believed.
Hi Ron, thanks for your response. By calling him “faithful” I didn’t mean to assert that this author is incapable of error by any means, only that he’s not a rad trad who is in the habit of maligning the Pope. I thought his depiction of the nature of magisterial authority smelled a little fishy, and you’ve confirmed and explained why exactly that is. And I’m sympathetic not so much to that aspect as to the impulse to find common ground with/identify what is praiseworthy in the Orthodox tradition.
Ron,
Please correct me should my knowledge be in error.
The Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has undergone many changes since the beginning. I believe there were deaconesses as early as the 3rd century. All references to the diaconate being men only came about in the 16th century. In years past, deacons were the stepping stone to become priests thus giving the interpretation of men only Now we all know men can only be ordained as priests, however, here in the western civilization due to the decline in priesthood, deacons became a permanent group to help and aid the church. I cannot find any teachings of the church declaring women not allowed to be ordained as deaconesses. Again, my interpretation of men only comes from the stepping stone to be ordained as a priest. I cannot and will not find any fault to Pope Francis in deciding his conclusions on this matter.
In my opinion, any person leaving the church due to the blessings or having women become ordained as deaconesses are very misguided and I pray for their souls.
Deacons were first instituted by the Apostles in Acts chapter 6. This was not originally a path to the priesthood, but a separate ordained ministry of service. In Romans 16:1, Phoebe may have been a deaconess. In later centuries, but well before he 16th century (as you mentioned), the Church clarified that women deaconesses were not ordained.
I would leave the church under Francis if Pope Francis attempted to authorize the ordination of female deacons. That would be a descent and deterioration into chaos and error that would be a bridge too far for me. Holy Orders is for baptized men only: CCC1577. That is a Catholic truth. Deacons are the first grade of Holy Orders. Females are excluded. No popesplainer could bring me back. I would be joined by many millions of defectors. Churches would empty in revolt. The church in the US would collapse. I would probably conclude at that point that Francis is an antipope, which I do not now believe, as I think that every decision and teaching that Pope Francis has thus far made has been consistent with Revelation and prior magisterial teaching. Ordaining female deacons? No way. No way to square that with Sacred Tradition. I would not return to the Church until and unless a successor pope/council undid the damage and clarified the error(s) of Francis. You know what “unordained female deaconesses” are? They are called women religious. The Church already has them. There is no need for a new titular category of “unordained women deaconesses,” and there is no theological possibility of ordained women deacons in Catholicism.