Ahead of the ongoing Synod on Synodality (October 4–29, 2023), Catholic News Agency reported that five prelates—German Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, American Cardinal Raymond Burke, Chinese Cardinal Zen Ze-Kiun, Mexican Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, and Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah—submitted five questions, known as dubia, to Pope Francis, seeking clarification on various points of doctrine and discipline. I will focus on the second question, which reads:
Dubium about the claim that the widespread practice of the blessing of same-sex unions would be in accord with revelation and the magisterium (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2357).
According to divine revelation, confirmed in sacred Scripture, which the Church “with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, . . . listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully” (Dei Verbum, 10): “In the beginning” God created man in his own image, male and female he created them and blessed them, that they might be fruitful (cf. Gen. 1:27-28), whereby the apostle Paul teaches that to deny sexual difference is the consequence of the denial of the Creator (Rom 1:24-32). It is asked: Can the Church derogate from this “principle,” objectively sinful such as same-sex unions, without betraying revealed doctrine?
Rather than providing a yes-or-no answer, which is what that particular dubium, as well as the four others, sought, Pope Francis gave a fairly lengthy seven-part response, which I will briefly outline before explaining why at least some of it is worrisome.
The Pope Answers
Parts (a) and (b) affirm that marriage has “a unique essential constitution,” namely, that it is “an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the begetting of children. . . . (Amoris Laetitia, 292).” Part (c) states that “the Church [therefore] avoids any kind of rite or sacramental that could contradict this conviction and give the impression that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.” That said, part (d) asserts that the Church “must not lose the pastoral charity that must permeate all [its] decisions and attitudes. The defense of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity, which is also made up of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement.”
From that move, the critical piece of Pope Francis’ response comes in part (e):
For this reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage. For when a blessing is requested, one is expressing a request for help from God, a plea for a better life, a trust in a Father who can help us to live better. (Emphasis added.)
Part (f) both acknowledges the reality of objectively sinful situations and states that “pastoral charity itself demands that we do not simply treat as ‘sinners’ other people whose guilt or responsibility may be due to their own fault or responsibility attenuated by various factors that influence subjective imputability (cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).” Finally, part (g) cautions that “[d]ecisions which, in certain circumstances, can form part of pastoral prudence, should not necessarily become a norm,” and, consequently, “it is not appropriate for a diocese, an episcopal conference or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially authorize procedures or rites for all kinds of matters.”
What’s the Big Deal?
The first thing to notice is the implicit suggestion, seen throughout the first four parts of the pope’s response, that doctrinal truth and pastoral care are somehow irreconcilably opposed to one another. That is false, for as then-Pope Benedict XVI wrote, “[o]nly what is true can ultimately be pastoral.” Beyond that, it is strange to characterize a same-sex couple’s seeking a “blessing” of their relationship as a plea to God for His help for them to live a better life. First off, what merit could there be in “blessing” a relationship that entails objectively sinful actions? In what sense is it even possible for such a thing to be “blessed”?
Moreover, does not the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation—which effects “a true ‘spiritual resurrection,’ restoration of the dignity and blessings of the life of the children of God, of which the most precious is friendship with God”—already provide the means to live in accord with the Gospel? Certainly, blessings are valid and good, but if the point is to “go and sin no more” (Jn. 8:11), one wonders what more an innovative, parish-by-parish “blessing” could add to the awesome power of that Sacrament.
How to Think About Why the Pope’s Position is Troublesome
Consider an unmarried couple. All (orthodox) Christians would agree that for them to intentionally engage in sexual intercourse would be fornication, a grave sin. Moreover, for, say, the man to inflame the (lustful) passions of the woman (or vice versa) is itself sinful—because he has set in motion the commission of a series of acts which have intercourse as their natural terminus but which cannot be morally fulfilled in their current state of life. “Fooling around” sends the unmarried couple hurtling down a path toward the performance of an act that they cannot sinlessly engage in. To put it bluntly, foreplay cries out for—it points to—sexual intercourse, and the former is not an end in itself but is instead a “participation” in the latter.
Pope Francis’ suggestion that it might be proper to “bless” same-sex couples’ relationships is wrong, or at least harmful, for similar reasons. Remember, he plainly admits in the first half of his response to the cardinals’ second dubium that marriage is a real institution with a particular nature/form, that marriage is a reality in which same-sex couples qua same-sex couples cannot participate, and that the Church cannot recognize things that are not marriages—here, same-sex unions—as marriages. That should be the end of it.
But it is not.
Pope Francis seems to nudge same-sex couples toward believing and hoping that the Church can (and perhaps will) offer more to them and their relationships than what is actually possible. Just as it is immoral for the unmarried couple to have sexual intercourse (and so they should not do things that tend toward that act), Pope Francis should not make statements that can be construed as suggesting that something is metaphysically possible when it is not. At a minimum, what he should do is tell the truth in charity, strongly discouraging the idea that the Church might be open to a de facto change in Her teaching on marriage—a nullification of principle via practice. And he should do so unambiguously, avoiding unclear statements that partisans can seize upon to push their own agenda to “update” the Church’s teaching.
The unmarried couple should strive for chastity, staying far away from anything that might lead to fornication. So, too, should the Church be exceptionally clear about the nature of marriage and the correlative truth that same-sex unions can never be marriages. Thankfully, no lasting damage has yet been done; we would do well to fervently pray that that remains the case.
seems like its not abiguous but clear that the vatican is now promoting homosexuality at least in terms of blessing gay couples. the people hungry to see ambiguity are the conservatives it seems.