Did Pope Francis allow the blessing of same sex couples — in his response to the Dubia?

[brnbk]

5 Cardinals recently asked the Pope, officially through a format known as Dubia, a couple of questions including the possibility of the Catholic Church officiating same-sex marriages or atleast a blessing to same sex couples, presumably on the lines of those followed in the Anglican Church.  The million dollar question is did Pope Francis say  Yes or No?

Following is the text of his response

 

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."

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."

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

 

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by brnbk

[BootmanLA]

Looking at this through the lens of canon law, I would suggest this is the gist of what the Pope is saying:

1. You can't "bless" a gay union in the context of a pseudo-marriage, and the Church must avoid the appearance of endorsing these non-marriage "marriages". If I had to interpret that, I'd say what he means is, a priest can't attend a same-sex wedding ceremony (or anything that, to an outside observer, would look like a wedding) and bless the union. He doesn't seem to want any possibility that someone would interpret the priest's actions as endorsing what the church considers a fake marriage.

2. You CAN bless a particular union, in the sense of recognizing their request of God to help them live better lives. Presumably, since this is supposed to be about two people seeking guidance and not celebrating the union, the lower-key this sort of request, the better. 

3. Section (g) basically says (as I read it) says basically not to have blanket policies about such blessings at the diocesan (or other church structural) level, because decisions to bless should be circumstance-specific. So, speaking purely hypothetically, a bishop might endorse blessing of a couple who seek support in one caring for the other through a serious illness, but not the blessing of a couple who simply want to hold themselves out as a couple socially within the Church.

Of course, I could be misunderstanding this (though I don't think I am). It's in keeping with what I understand to be the current Pope's views.

[brnbk]

In a. to c.  he repeats traditional teaching — non recognition of same sex 'marraige', but then goes on to say (d.) we must not judge, and (e.) try to bless but not as a marriage coz same-sex is a mistaken concept of marriage (e.) and the Church must not convey a message of affirmation for it, yet in the very next point(f.), goes on to question objective morality and suggests it may be mitigated by factors affective subjective accountability; thus presumably, allowing for the possibility of same-sex blessing as if gays are born this way, can they really be held accountable for their actions.

So, A to C is No 

D is possibly

E is maybe

F is Yes!

---------------------

Thus, A To F is...

[viking8x6]

A-C: The church can't marry gay people. It can't even seem to marry gay people. Anything like that is right out.

D-E: The church can bless gay people if it's just a blessing and not something that seems like marriage.

F: Makes no sense at all. Seems tangential to the argument, and "on the other hand" has no sensible antecedent.

G: It's not appropriate for the church to make a policy of that blessing thing. It basically has to stay a one-off by special request only.

After that last bit, next thing you know they'll be selling indulgences... 🙄

[brnbk]

 

On 10/30/2023 at 2:24 PM, BootmanLA said:

Looking at this through the lens of canon law, I would suggest this is the gist of what the Pope is saying:

1. You can't "bless" a gay union in the context of a pseudo-marriage,................a priest can't attend a same-sex wedding ceremony (or anything that, to an outside observer, would look like a wedding) and bless the union. 

2. You CAN bless a particular union, in the sense of recognizing their request of God to help them live better lives.

You cannot bless and you can bless.... 🙂; how do we interpret that, or perform it in real life?

On 10/31/2023 at 9:40 AM, viking8x6 said:

A

After that last bit, next thing you know they'll be selling indulgences... 🙄

I wonder what the indulgences for barebacking would look like. 

Anyone who has indulged in barebacking in the last 3 months, can buy an Indulgence with a payment of $1M ?

 

Edited November 5, 2023 by brnbk

[BootmanLA]

18 hours ago, brnbk said:

You cannot bless and you can bless.... 🙂; how do we interpret that, or perform it in real life?

Well, luckily, neither you nor I would have to make that decision, because it's up to the discretion of the local ecclesiastical authorities (and I presume that you, like me, are not one of those).

It depends on circumstances, and that's not a difficult concept to grasp. From another realm entirely, for example: A man is standing on my front porch. Can I just pull out a gun and shoot him, legally? No, I can't. But if he pulls a knife and makes moves to stab me, yes, I can. Circumstances.

The example I keep coming back to, for ecclesiastical blessings of a same-sex union, would be where one partner is ill or disabled, and the other is taking care of him, and they seek the Church's support. It's a case where, theoretically, the priest can ignore the fact that this is a pair of men having sex and focus on blessing the bond between them that allows one to care for the other (which is a Christ-like thing to do on the part of the non-ill/disabled partner). Not all cases will be that easy, of course, but that's why the Pope is directing people away from formulaic rules and focusing on the specifics of a particular situation. Circumstances.