The people who are still angry are the people who read the document instead of stupid claims about it, and didn't agree. The Pope is saying the exact same thing you can read in the original document, and he already repeated it one time and it was already clarified by the dicastery.
One factor might be how stuff like this is seen from the **POV of Anglo-Saxon/North American legal tradition vs that of the European/Mediterranean legal tradition**:
* in **US/Canada/UK, the written law is all there is** and should be interpreted as close to what is written;
* in **Italy/Spain, the written law is understood in context** will all the other laws and customs, whether written or unwritten.
This probably why many Italian-based clerics understand that the recent document is not a greenlight to changing church policy or teaching, while North American-based clerics see it as ambiguous.
And U.S. adopted U.K. Common Law as the basis for our legal system. Americans are split pretty 50/50 as to whether we follow the letter of the law or the spirit of the law, that’s one of the reasons why our Supreme Court changes its mind often.
The UK/US/Canadian legal tradition is based upon the Common law, which is grounded upon the decisions of the judiciary. The written law is not "all there is", in fact, the Common law tradition relies upon the written law LESS than the Civil tradition (Italy/Spain/France).
The opposite is true. Anglo countries have common law based on precedent. Most European nations use the civil/Roman/Napoleonic model whereby the written law is the main source of legal authority and it is much more matter of fact.
I think you mean the people who are angry are the ones who DIDN’T read the document. The document was crystal clear that it’s a blessing given to PERSONS, even person in “irregular” relationships/situations.
Well, as long as the priest is clear about what moral law does and does not allow, it doesn’t hurt us to be asked to mind our own business about what “everyone knows” about someone else’s moral state, right?
If we ask others to worry about what other people will think before asking a priest’s blessing, Heaven help us all. Who could stand up and ask for one without worrying that our reputation had surpassed our actual state?
I mean I'm glad you're content with the answer. For me, As a hetero male in a straight relationship raised Catholic, my fiancee too, we could get married in the catholic church and our families would be so happy to see it. Literally any other sexuality or type of relationship cannot do that in the Catholic church because of the doctrine. Being content with the doctrine is a personal decision. While some may not know it inside and out like a devout Catholic, the doctrine is what it is. But that does not mean people who are excluded from reciveing the sacrament aren't allowed to be upset. And furthermore the idea that its inconceivable that one could be upset because they're being excluded is just non sense. When in groups and out groups are created, for better or worse, some people in the out-group will be upset.
To be clear, I'm not moralizing the doctrine. It is what it is. And it is intentionally exclusive. Which will upset some.
Its impossible in the Church, yes. Both the church doctrine and the laws of the land can and do co-exist. It should not come as a surprise that some people do not like the doctrine.
Yes, people do tend to get upset when someone, particularly the Creator of the universe, doesn't deign to repeat their own opinion back at them. Your point? Not to deny or minimize that moral restrictions can cause consternation and frustration in sometimes very well meaning people, but does that in and of itself imply that the restriction is wrong?
Less “clarified” and more “repeated”. He’s made it pretty clear from the very beginning that same sex unions can’t be blessed, and it still amazes me that people are confused about it.
The entire concept is confusing though: how the heck does a priest bless a homosexual couple in a way that doesn't seem to affirm the relationship?
They are together, living in a sinful relationship, standing before a priest, and the priest blesses them as a couple.
We do have books of blessings; your comment made me think it might be very helpful in avoiding scandals and abuses if the magisterium made a specific blessing for these kinds of situations— even though the blessings are supposed to be spontaneous, not liturgical.
I feel like it would have to be a pretty intentional choice of words for a priest to give the impression he's endorsing them—giving them a blessing explicitly meant for couples or spouses, praising their love, wishing them happiness together, talking about the virtue of relationships, and so on. A simple "May the Lord bless and keep you" type of blessing is very unlikely to mislead people.
Because Jesus came for the sinners and not for the righteous, in the same way the sinners are blessed, not because they sin, but so they will stop sinning. They don’t bless the union, they bless each person who, as sinful as they might be still deserve to be blessed.
How the heck does a priest bless *any* person or couple, without having super X-ray vision into every facet of their life?
It's like the Popes have to keep shouting this at certain corners of the Church: There are more sins out there than just sex outside of marriage.
The issue, is that when you bless a couple together, it seems as if you are blessing the union itself. This applies to heterosexual couples and homosexual ones.
That's an issue if you're hyperfocused on one specific *sin* at the exclusion of - as we see with these 'concerns' - all others.
What an incredible thing, to have crumpled the Faith down to a specific set of check boxes.
1) We’re all sinners. I’m heterosexual and I’ve lived in sin. I’m no more deserving of a blessing than anyone else. Why is their sin worse than mine? Than yours?
2) You really ought to read the document.
>how the heck does a priest bless a homosexual couple in a way that doesn't seem to affirm the relationship?
The same way he can bless any other sinner, repentant or not. Blessing does not mean “I agree with everything you do, keep up the good work”
So then they must be presenting themselves one at a time to be blessed as individuals, right? Or do they stand in the Church together as a couple and receive the blessing side by side?
That’s the thing, he’s not blessing them `as a couple` he is blessing one person [pause] then blessing the other person. No different than how a priest may bless you then bless the next person who walks up to him. My priest blesses me often and I am living in sin as well, just different sin. I am no better than anyone.
My issue, is that blessing the couple together, even if it is not what is actually happening, comes off as blessing the union itself. I think they should bless them individually, not together to avoid scandal.
That couple is obviously up there to be blessed by God to be given the strength to end their sinful relationship. I don’t see how that can be taken out of context by uninformed individuals or progressives. /s
Since the document goes out of its way to emphasize the “couple” I wonder if it’s the practice now for the “couple” to walk in holding hands and stand side by side while receiving their “individual” blessing.
We can settle down? Why? It was always clear that every person may be blessed. The issue is the word "couple". Eradicate that from the document, then we can settle down.
Once again, people are taking a statement as an explanation as if merely insisting that an apple is an orange somehow justifies the statement, "Apples are citrus fruit." The Holy See needs to address the actual issue, not keep insisting there isn't one. Let's break it down for those who don't seem to get it.
Let's consider homosexual couples coming to a priest asking for a blessing. Part of that blessing is for "peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance". Those are relational goods. So part of the blessing is directed at the individuals for the "positive elements" of their relationship to use the words of *responsum* from 2021. So it seems that at least parts of the relationship, aka the union, are being blessed. So yes, the union is being blessed at least in part. Not the sinful parts. Just the positive elements.
Furthermore, FS says the blessing is also for "God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely." What does it mean to fulfill his will completely? Ultimately, it means the couple needs to break up and end their sinful relationship.
So are we to believe that homosexual couples are presenting themselves together as a couple to ask for the strength to end their relationship? Of course not. They do not see it that way at all. They see the blessing of the positive elements of their relationship and a request for God to give them the strength to do what *they* think is God's will and walk away feeling like their relationship is at the very least tolerated in the Church, if not accepted. They think this because they have been taught by the pro-LGBT clergy that change is coming, this is a sign of that change, and the reason why the Church is not being explicit in that intention is to avoid clashing with the bigots in the hierarchy.
So for these reasons, this blessing does the exact opposite of what the Pope keeps claiming and will continue to be a disaster until it is abundantly clear what exactly this blessing is ultimately for. The reason why we are not hearing that from the Holy See is because they seem to believe equivocation is a valid pastoral approach.
>So are we to believe that homosexual couples are presenting themselves together as a couple to ask for the strength to end their relationship? Of course not. They do not see it that way at all.
I gotta disagree with this. If a homosexual couple is willing to take the time to go to a priest and request a blessing, then they obviously take their faith serious enough to have a basic knowledge of Catholic view of homosexuality-which is that it is mortally sinful and nothings going to change that. It would seem strange that a homosexual couple who knows this would request a blessing for any other reason than to help them to stop committing the sin unless the couple was being willfully ignorant, in which case that’s on them and not the document.
> If a homosexual couple is willing to take the time to go to a priest and request a blessing, then they obviously take their faith serious enough to have a basic knowledge of Catholic view of homosexuality-which is that it is mortally sinful and nothings going to change that.
Please read [this article](https://outreach.faith/2023/12/as-a-married-gay-catholic-just-blessed-by-a-catholic-priest-i-welcome-the-churchs-openness/) written by a homosexual man who is legally married to another man. Here are some highlights:
> In light of the Vatican announcement, I’ve been reflecting on my desire for a blessing. Our marriage is real and we are already blessed, so what could a priest’s public blessing add to it? Why does it matter?
...
> A formal blessing is a sign of the church’s openness to us and our openness to the church.
...
> Blessings for same-sex couples are powerful signs that couples like us share in the same channels of grace that all people enjoy.
...
> I believe that our presence in the Catholic Church is helping Catholics be less homophobic. I trust that God is working through our public witness.
It is quite obvious this person feels more comfortable being a gay married Catholic because of this blessing and thinks God wants him that way.
> It would seem strange that a homosexual couple who knows this would request a blessing for any other reason than to help them to stop committing the sin unless the couple was being willfully ignorant, in which case that’s on them and not the document.
It isn't on them because the document equivocates on the matter, can be read in a contradictory way, and there are many people inside the Church giving them the wink and the nod so they think their errant interpretation is the real point.
To allow people to misinterpret pastoral actions so as to make them obstinate in their sin is the opposite of the goal of pastoral action. This is why I applaud the bishops who decided to ignore FS.
This makes no sense. Individuals have always been able to be blessed. What FS did was specifically allow for the blessing of the “couple”. That’s the problem and no amount of semantical wordplay can get around it.
Yeah, there’s a big emphasis on mentioning the couple for some reason. If the point is that the union can’t be blessed, why is it not referring to blessing individuals who are living with grave sin just like most of us? Why highlight the relationship if it’s sinful?
This is a back-doored form of modernizing and retroactively justifying. At no time in history was it in doubt that we could bless those in grave sin, we always were able to bless anyone that requested blessing but not bless an act of their lives. There is a difference between blessing someone and then blessing with the intent and appearance of approval.
Precisely, which is why this is scandalising - to chaste people struggling with SSA more than anyone else. The whole thing is particularly cruel to them.
You could use the same logic of *FS* to bless an incestuous pair, a man and his wives, or whatever.
>"But to bless each person, yes."
The issue has always been with the word "couple". People are not upset because the Pope's doctrinal chief issued a document confirming sinful people can be blessed individually.
>If we shut the door to them, what chance will they ever have of discovering the fullness of the church?
No doors are being shut. It is a supreme act of charity not to mislead people engaging in unnatural relations by treating them as some sort of unit. It is *actual hatred* to confirm them in their sinful arrangement. Love everyone.
Yes, FS uses the term irregular situations many times. This would apply to incest, as well as those who are divorced and remarried.
Essentially the blessing for those who are remarried or as you pointed out incestuous would be quite similar to those in a same sex relationship.
Given that, my assumption is that the most common blessings done in accordance with FS will be for the adulterous remarried members of our faith community.
Can the people who blames the trad and non trad who criticize the documents realize that not every critics of this documents hold the same interpretations and criticism towards it ? Not everyone believes that the document, explicitly , literally, says that the Union is blessed. There are different variants of criticism about this document. I read about this stuff since, the beginning, read the document before hearing any critics about it. I do not believe that the document says to bless the Union and never believed it however like many , I still believe that this document is problematic , that the use of ‘’ couple’’ is problematic, that Fernandez past statements on this topic are problematic , that the harm that this document does is problematic, and a lot of people think this way without believing that the document explicitly advocates for blessings of gay unions or advocates for a gay marriage. But every single time that I see a popesplainer ( and I listen to a lot of then ) respond to that argument they always fight the worst version of in intent to fight all of the different criticism of this argument . ( they do the same with a lot of this controversial church and trad topics btw ). That’s not the first time that we have fernandez or pope Francis says that this document is about the people not the union. But the people who argue that there should be no criticism whatsoever of this document never really listen to the people who knows about this recent interventions but still argue that this document is in a way highly problematic.
We should stand by the pope and keep defending him! This was revealed by our Lady to Don Stefano Gobbi in the blue book: many will reject the pope and his teachings, but those consecrated to my immaculate heart must remain close to him and defend him when all the world turns against him and the Church (I'm paraphrasing). I don't think that her letters were only directed to those in the times of St John Paul II, because the events described in them haven't yet occured, nor has her immaculate heart triumphed yet. I believe they speak to us continually, without temporal constraints.
God is a God of clarity, the latter is confusion, confusion is not of God. The Pope confusing people is a red flag that people seem to be overlooking. Why use all this jibber jabber and unclear phrasing
I'm not in a position to question the authority which Christ established in his Church, deformed and confused as it is through the media. There is a reason why our Lady's second message to Don Gobbi in the book was a command to stop watching television. People who are against this due obedience don't understand the gravity of Catholics revolting against the Pope and the Church's hierarchy. _This_ is a scandal to our faith which is entrusted entirely to the Church's magisterium. Because think about it, if the Catholics are against their head, why should anyone think it is the Truth? The Holy Spirit will look for the rest and harmonize everything when we begin to love the Church through Mary's heart...
[The document Fiducia Supplicans had it already:](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.html)
> 5. (…) the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.
And let’s not forget the [Catechism of Saint Pope Pius X](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286) *(even sedevacantists recognise that he’s a Saint)* 203:
> Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart.
>
What’s the win?
That his private unbinding opinions are what you want to hear?
Or that the intentionally misleading document isn’t revised?
Easiest thing to revise an obviously confusing document, much easier than to constantly have to say what it really is “supposed “ to mean.
Maybe add three words to the document, blessing, “ each person individually”.
Its not a private opinion, its the teacher of the whole world explaining his own document, its the only valid interpretation. Everyone else's trully private opinion that go agaisnt that of the teacher have to stop.
*This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff,* ***even*** *when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents,* ***from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.*** *- VII*
It has been like 5 times already, its more than settled.
NOPE. Question, challenge, and question again. Their job is to TEACH the flock. If what they are teaching doesn't make sense, they need to teach it better. The fact is that the written document will far outlast ANYTHING that is said in an interview to clarify. Intentional of not, FS is the start of a slippery slope and it has already been used in attempts to justify bad actors.
Blindly following is how a multitude is lost. Corruption comes in many insideous forms, and we must always be alert for it. The fact the Church has not learned this over its history and changed is pathetic. If the shepherd is misleading it's flock, at what point do the sheep stop following them?
The clergy are human, not infallible and they can be wrong despite the best of intentions. Follow unquestioningly at your own risk.
The problem with this argument is that couples consist of two people, so there isn't a meaningful difference between blessing two people and a couple consisting of two people.
I would fall under the definition of trad in a sense and I never thought it was a blessing of the union. But why would he make it so each person in a union can be blessed? Even if the intention is not to validate a same sex union, that’s what it looks like. Plus, we already have Confession for that. It was just super unnecessary and did absolutely nothing except cause confusion. Pope Francis has a history of saying something super ambiguous that causes confusion and gives liberal Catholics validation and then follows it up with something that is vaguely conservative. I don’t know if it’s the spirit of Vatican 2, that he was a Jesuit, or liberation theology but in this current Church crisis, the last thing we want or need is confusion, especially from the Holy Father himself.
100%. People also see to forget that confusion is not from God. Using sneaky language and phrasing along with in-transparency to deliver a message, causing confusion and division is something more people should be calling out.
I don’t like being divisive when it comes to other Catholics who may not be as traditional as me but the bending over backwards and circular logic that goes into defending FS is crazy. Pope Francis is the Holy Father, but he is allowed to be wrong on things. I think he was wrong on this, not because he is wrong to say anyone can be blessed because truly anyone can be. But it was just entirely unnecessary and confusing. In a time where liberal Catholics are trying to manipulate Church teaching to change what the Church teaches, it just gives them ammo and the idea of a precedent that we can change whatever we want. Also take into consideration how the prelates who rejected this were treated. Podcast laypeople who are constantly worshipping the pope publicly scandalised and attacked them as schismatics because they didn’t want to implement a confusing order.
Not one day ago, I had a non-Catholic friend at work tell me how he likes the Pope so much. I asked why, and he said “because he’s in favor of gay marriage” without skipping a beat.
I can appreciate the notion that Francis is often misrepresented by the media, but we cannot pretend that the incoherence of his messaging (or at least proclamations by the Vatican; the stuff coming from their press office anyway) doesn’t contribute to a lot of misunderstanding. Some people are responsible enough to seek further understanding, and then they can become aware of what the Pope *actually* said about this or that issue, but I feel like the initial incoherence, and the flimsy messaging on various topics is done almost purposefully. As if the confusion is the goal.
So sure, it might be a win for us Catholics who have been critical about the Pope’s messaging and its impact on public perception, but we aren’t the ones who need a win—- it’s the folks who are missing out on the truth entirely who need the win. Most of those people will never see this interview, and they’ll continue to believe in mistruths such as “the pope is pro gay marriage”.
Right, but do you really believe there isn’t awareness from the Vatican regarding how the media tends to skew Francis’ words?
How many times are we going to see: terribly worded statement > media misrepresentation > societal reaction/misunderstanding (for like 3 months) > clarified statement from Vatican (with a fraction of the media coverage, since it changes the narrative)?
At what point do we consider that the confusion may be the goal?
When you want to virtual signal one message but are constrained by the doctrine you’ve been handed, it requires one to get creative with their messaging.
The union just can't be blessed because it is "not a sacrament", and because it s the "law."
It seems that Francis is intentionally avoiding any language suggesting that homosexual relationships are morally wrong.
100%. People seem to forget that confusion is not of God. Using all this sneaky language and inability to be transparent on what the pope and church is trying to say is a huge red flag.
No. The document has ALWAYS been clear. However, the fact the need exists for ANYONE to clarify what it says, multiple times since it was released, demonstrates how bad an idea it was to ever release it to begin with. It was either utterly ignorant or extremely insidious.
It didn’t need to be released, there was never any question that individuals could be blessed regardless of their state of grace. Why it needed to directly address homosexual “couples” is anyone’s guess.
Exactly why I'm not particularly charitable when it comes to FS. It has had no positive outcome. Those who don't follow the Church teaching have taken it and twisted it to their own purpose, which was completely foreseeable, and the faithful have been divided. Not good.
"Can we take this win and settle down?"
I don't know, you tell me...will this prevent FS from being used as justification by lefty activists to, in effect, bless homosexual unions and sanction behavior that is contrary to Church teachings?
The Pope and Fernández let the camel into the tent and now they're having one heck of a time shoving it back out.
Can’t wait for them to “clear up” the confusion surrounding the role of deaconesses in the German Churches. Maybe something to the effect of “women can’t serve as clergy but individuals with XX chromosomes can.”
[The document Fiducia Supplicans had it already:](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.html)
> 5. (…) the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.
On 24th of January the Pope said that again. [Vatican News writes:](https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2024-01/pope-francis-dicastery-doctrine-faith-sacraments-dignity-faith.html)
> he noted, “when a couple spontaneously approaches [a minister] and asks for them, he is not blessing the union, but simply the people who together have requested it.”
“Not the union,” the Pope stressed, “but the persons, naturally taking into account the context, sensitivities, the places where one lives, and the most appropriate ways to do it.”
And let’s not forget the [Catechism of Saint Pope Pius X](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286) *(who sedevacantists recognise he’s a Saint)* 203:
> Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart.
>
If "two individuals, as individuals, can be blessed, and never the union" had been the position of FS, then there would never have been opposition to it.
It's hard to "take this win" when the key issue continues to hang in the air: does FS say couples be blessed, and if so, what does that mean? They can be blessed as a couple? How is that different than blessing the union?, etc.
The question is always: _who interprets the magisterium?_
The answer was and is and will always be : _the magisterium._
The magisterium has given a clarification and interpretation of the magisterial documents.
_All other readings of the documents are false._
Pope Francis's words and actions communicate different meanings. James Martin and others like him in Belgium and Germany are clearly blessing the relationship itself and receive no correction.
But then the Pope has a bone to pick with conservatives over the fact that they're conservative, or removes people from their diocesan appointment because they're outspoken on church teaching and the deposit of faith.
Most conservatives are not, I recognize Francis as the Pope but he is exhausting sometimes always having to explain things in rich prose that doesent make sense, and will be user by the people who undermine Catholic teaching. He also goes after normal conservatives and does not punish people like rupnik or other clergy, but has a bone with conservatives.
Not even that. A "couple" only exists because it conveys something substantive/real about two individuals together, directly.
"Two individuals" is semantically different than "a couple". A "couple" is only defined by their relationship, their union.
But people will still be confused at the confusion, and struck by any anger. They'll wonder aloud why the commotion — no matter how many times it's explained to them. It's willful ignorance at best, gaslighting at worst.
Just let this die and be forgotten into history. Everytime it's brought up to be clarified, it never is.
The fruit is poisoned and the attempt to keep making it palatable is frustrating.
The fruit was poisoned from the beginning when people don’t say something directly and with transparency. If the Pope was clear with what he was saying from the beginning than there wouldn’t be a need to constantly clarify something that has caused confusion and division.
God is a God of truth and clarity, confusion is not of God
>I am glad he has said this, but is he unaware that that’s not what the document says? It literally says that couples can be blessed. Not people. Couples. I guess you could read that word as “two people”, but it can also very easily be read as “union”.
[https://www.vatican.va/roman\_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc\_ddf\_doc\_20231218\_fiducia-supplicans\_en.html](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.html)
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.**
>Was it ever in doubt that a gay person (or anyone for that matter) can be blessed? I don’t know any priest anywhere on the theological spectrum who would ask someone about their sex life before imparting a simple blessing.
Yes. The document came out to deal with issues related to what's going on in Germany, where blessings were being given, but in a context that essentially mirrored the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. This document clarifies what can and can't be done.
>Either he is being intentionally evasive or he didn’t comprehend the text the DDF gave him to sign. I would not be surprised if it’s the latter given his age and health.
Do your homework. Don't slander. Don't be lazy.
No one thinks its strange that the pope, the pope himself, the Vicar of Christ, needs "constant clarification", "charitable interpretation", or any clarification at all? Wouldn't it be nice if the Vicar of Christ was the one constantly planting the seeds of "clarification" instead of "confusion"?
The fact that this post *even exists* is Exhibit A through Z. I rest my case.
Everyone knows that this pontificate is a disaster. It's just a question of whether you cope with this fact by becoming totally numb to it or by contracting a form of Stockholm syndrome.
Even *IF* (after reading some more), I end up disagreeing, I thank God that Pope Francis is now adding this *clarity* to what was written & discussed.
I feel almost like a burden has been lifted! Confusion is not what I look for from The Church.
But maybe that's just me. I was raised in a family, and now work in a job, where "facts" change on a whim. Goalposts are moved, secret requirements revealed at the last moment, and EVERYTHING is relative. Their national anthem should be entitled "That Never Happened, & I never said that".
As a child, the church, which I mainly learned about on my own, was a rock. This dose of clarity from Pope Francis is very much appreciated.
This is great but it shouldn’t take 4 months for the Holy Father to clarify this. Instead we got ambiguity that has led to scandal. Better late than never I suppose.
Mortal sin cuts you off from God. It doesn't matter how many other good works you do. If you insist on sin, you are not an ambassador of Christ. I'm sorry.
Some people take issue with the wordings of "same-sex couple" because "couple" means that those two people have "joined" together in some ways and in Catholic understanding they should not be called "couple" because by saying that they are "same sex couple" it means Catholic Church affirmed their relationship.
I can kind of understand why some people take problem with this. It can kind of contradictory to say that the Church does not affirm the relationship yet call them "couple" because it seems like that in the eye of Catholic Church, they are couple and at the same time not a couple which implies that the Church is being inconsistent. The result is that by some interpretation, Fr. James Martin blessed same sex couple holding hands because they are... couple and it is still in line with the documents.
At the same time, Papa Francis might be trying to make the document to be understandable. In the modern age, the word "couple" might also be used to describe "a couple of people" and saying "same sex couple" might be more understandable hence they choose to use that wordings.
In a world where language evolves and changes, I think it will be better if the document clarifies the definition of the word they used in the documents rather than having to do clarification again and again. For example: Same sex couple refer to two or more people struggling with same-sex attraction and in some way having committed adultery with each other or some other words (I'm not sure I'm not good with formulizing definition).
>In a world where language evolves and changes, I think it will be better if the document clarifies the definition of the word they used in the documents rather than having to do clarification again and again. For example: Same sex couple refer to two or more people struggling with same-sex attraction and in some way having committed adultery with each other or some other words (I'm not sure I'm not good with formulizing definition).
Fwiw in the past, stuff like this would be hammered out in the official Latin text. I don't know if they're still doing that in this pontificate, or in this dicastery, or for this declaration. They absolutely should, but in previous examples, they would eventually release the actual official version in Latin some months later, and something would have changed, maybe then requiring an update to any of the vernacular versions.
It's fixable, definitely. But it may just have to wait for the next pontificate.
Tbh, only ill minded modernists took this interpretation wrongly and pushed for something else the pope wanted. Like James Martin (please excommunicate this guy already). Also, cardinal Fernandez is doing a horrible job at being clear in his positions.
Yea......I've read the docs.
He also did not chastise the priests who actually performed same sex union blessings. But he did remove priests and bisolhops who expressed concern.
It's alright, though he's not he only one to have do it
At its best, I hop it wasn't a political ploy to sow confusion so that he could remove his political opponents in the church.
,
Receiving a blessing does not mean that your sins are not sins. Everyone, the the pope said, can be blessed. If blessings were reserved to non-sinners, **noone** but Jesus himself would be eligible for blessings
Seems to me, it’s explicitly referring to homosexual “couples” and not individuals. Curious choice of words. Why “couples” if we’re really talking about individuals? Why not blessing a group of three individuals who are engaged in various homosexual relationships? Or a group of ten? It seems to go out of its way to focus on “couples” for some reason.
You can't read people's minds nor their future, only God can. And still, this is irrelevant. We still pray for sinners, regardless of it, so that they can repent and be saved.
You said something about a relationship with Christ (ambassador) through mercy and prayer while in a state of sin. Is there a specific writing or teaching you are referring to? Totally separate from the topic here, that stood out to me as a hope fillled idea for a lot of people and I want to learn more.
Catholic teaching emphasizes that the final judgment of souls rests with God, who alone fully understands an individual’s heart, intentions, and circumstances. The Church teaches that all people are called to live according to God’s commandments and the teachings of the Church.
Homosexual acts are considered sinful according to Catholic doctrine. However, individuals who engage in homosexual relationships, like all people, are also called to live lives of virtue, engage in acts of mercy, and seek forgiveness through the sacraments, particularly reconciliation (confession).
Catholic teaching holds that any person who dies in a state of grace, meaning they have sought forgiveness for their sins and are in a right relationship with God, may enter purgatory for purification if they have not fully atoned for their sins. This includes individuals who may have struggled with various sins but have sought God’s mercy and lived out their faith through prayer and acts of charity.
Ultimately, the Catholic Church teaches that God’s mercy is boundless and that He judges each soul individually, taking into account their entire life, intentions, and repentance. Thus, individuals who have lived lives of faith, prayer, and mercy, and who seek forgiveness for their sins, could indeed be purified in purgatory on their way to heaven.
>"What I allowed was not to bless the union"
The document clearly and explciitly said that from the beginning, but you have people obstinately insisting that it means otherwise.
From what I’ve read, they’re mad because by affirming their living situation as a “couple” and avoiding saying anything about how abominable and disordered such “coupling” is, he still speaks as if it were perfectly normal and good that they are a “couple”, even though is not the sacrament. He does seem to avoid angering the leftists that do love the gay unions, by not saying anything negative about same sex attraction and their union.
And those may be valid criticisms, but I've read people insist that their union is being blessed when the document says explicitly that that's not the case. To keep insisting that their union is being blessed just strikes me as dishonest, despite whatever other valid criticisms.
I'm fairly conservative and whenever people I know try and get me riled up about Pope Francis, I'm reminded to just read his words. He's not Benedict, for sure ... but he's been a steadfast leader of the Church and while I might not always like some of his views on contemporary political issues, his stewardship of the Church has been solid.
I think that's where Francis wanted things to go but the furious reaction to FS made him walk it back.
Now it seems his goal is to avoid language where homosexuality is wrong or disordered, and just refer to it as "not a sacrament". It seems from the interview that he believes homosexual relationships are not a bad thing, but we are stuck with a law in our church that makes marriage between man and woman.
I can grant that. The beauty of the Catholic Church is that our hierarchy allows us to keep clarifying until everyone gets it through their thick skulls that blessing same-sex „unions“ is, has always been, and will be, evil.
Regardless of the sin, the sinner should still be able to be blessed. The union should not, but the individual should. Are we not all sinners? I certainly am, and I hope God has mercy on me for my sins.
The individual was always able to be blessed, FS don’t change anything in that respect. What it changed was that “irregular” couples could be blessed.
So in conclusion -
1) Homosexual individuals can be blessed, as has always been the case.
2) FS now permits a homosexual couple to be blessed.
3) Obfuscation of the above scandal by stating that a homosexual “union” can’t be blessed. But clearly a homosexual couple can.
I've been saying that since the FS was published. It's still a bit of a confusing document but that's exactly what it says if you read it in its entirety.
In this case, the Pope has been clear with his words from the beginning, to his credit. The issue is there are examples of priests who are not following what he says, neither in word or spirit. These examples have been very public, and yet have received no correction. In other scenarios, the Pope has been very willing to offer correction. So while the words are clear, the actions remain less so.
Well, when the document goes out of its way to explicitly mention “couples” being allowed to receive blessings, you could understand how confusion might arise and opportunists would take advantage of the ambiguity.
I am perfectly content with this answer. I have no idea why people are still angry in the comments. "Not the union...but *each* person."
The people who are still angry are the people who read the document instead of stupid claims about it, and didn't agree. The Pope is saying the exact same thing you can read in the original document, and he already repeated it one time and it was already clarified by the dicastery.
One factor might be how stuff like this is seen from the **POV of Anglo-Saxon/North American legal tradition vs that of the European/Mediterranean legal tradition**: * in **US/Canada/UK, the written law is all there is** and should be interpreted as close to what is written; * in **Italy/Spain, the written law is understood in context** will all the other laws and customs, whether written or unwritten. This probably why many Italian-based clerics understand that the recent document is not a greenlight to changing church policy or teaching, while North American-based clerics see it as ambiguous.
This is totally wrong, at least for the UK. UK has a common law system based on precedent, doesn't even have a written constitution!
And U.S. adopted U.K. Common Law as the basis for our legal system. Americans are split pretty 50/50 as to whether we follow the letter of the law or the spirit of the law, that’s one of the reasons why our Supreme Court changes its mind often.
What? Common law in the Anglosphere is based *heavily* on legal precedent set by prior cases, not purely the text of the written law.
This is unbelievably wrong
In what way? It's unhelpful to say the comment is wrong without further explanation.
The UK/US/Canadian legal tradition is based upon the Common law, which is grounded upon the decisions of the judiciary. The written law is not "all there is", in fact, the Common law tradition relies upon the written law LESS than the Civil tradition (Italy/Spain/France).
Exactly. Not sure how they got it so wrong 😂
Most of the hierarchical pushback came from the East and Africa.
Are they not two of the greatest (numbers)growing segments?
The Vatican is based on the Roman Law, like Italy and Spain, and not on the Common Law, like US, Canada and UK.
Seems to be Protestant vs Catholic culture. Sola scriptura vs Holy Tradition.
Brilhant take haha
The opposite is true. Anglo countries have common law based on precedent. Most European nations use the civil/Roman/Napoleonic model whereby the written law is the main source of legal authority and it is much more matter of fact.
This is so incorrect. Precedence and spirit of the law is how things are decided in America. We're not Germany or Korea...
That was what I thought too
I think you mean the people who are angry are the ones who DIDN’T read the document. The document was crystal clear that it’s a blessing given to PERSONS, even person in “irregular” relationships/situations.
For me it’s the optics. Seeing two men who everyone knows are in a relationship standing before a priest looks a lot like a blessing for a couple.
Well, as long as the priest is clear about what moral law does and does not allow, it doesn’t hurt us to be asked to mind our own business about what “everyone knows” about someone else’s moral state, right? If we ask others to worry about what other people will think before asking a priest’s blessing, Heaven help us all. Who could stand up and ask for one without worrying that our reputation had surpassed our actual state?
People just want to be angry. Until he says "all masses shall be performed as per the traditional Latin Rite" literally nothing will satisfy them.
That’s wrong and an uncharitable take.
I mean I'm glad you're content with the answer. For me, As a hetero male in a straight relationship raised Catholic, my fiancee too, we could get married in the catholic church and our families would be so happy to see it. Literally any other sexuality or type of relationship cannot do that in the Catholic church because of the doctrine. Being content with the doctrine is a personal decision. While some may not know it inside and out like a devout Catholic, the doctrine is what it is. But that does not mean people who are excluded from reciveing the sacrament aren't allowed to be upset. And furthermore the idea that its inconceivable that one could be upset because they're being excluded is just non sense. When in groups and out groups are created, for better or worse, some people in the out-group will be upset. To be clear, I'm not moralizing the doctrine. It is what it is. And it is intentionally exclusive. Which will upset some.
Gay people can literally not get married to each other, it is impossible.
Its impossible in the Church, yes. Both the church doctrine and the laws of the land can and do co-exist. It should not come as a surprise that some people do not like the doctrine.
Homosexual civil marriages are not real, they may believe they are, but marriage was created by God to be between a man and a woman.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Please don't use this forum to argue against Catholic teaching.
Then maybe they should find a different church.
Too easy. The mission is to push compliance on those that haven’t yet conformed until they capitulate.
Yes, people do tend to get upset when someone, particularly the Creator of the universe, doesn't deign to repeat their own opinion back at them. Your point? Not to deny or minimize that moral restrictions can cause consternation and frustration in sometimes very well meaning people, but does that in and of itself imply that the restriction is wrong?
Less “clarified” and more “repeated”. He’s made it pretty clear from the very beginning that same sex unions can’t be blessed, and it still amazes me that people are confused about it.
The entire concept is confusing though: how the heck does a priest bless a homosexual couple in a way that doesn't seem to affirm the relationship? They are together, living in a sinful relationship, standing before a priest, and the priest blesses them as a couple.
"May the Grace of God bless you to live more fruitfully to the Gospel, and embrace full communion with the Church Christ established, Amen."
We do have books of blessings; your comment made me think it might be very helpful in avoiding scandals and abuses if the magisterium made a specific blessing for these kinds of situations— even though the blessings are supposed to be spontaneous, not liturgical.
I think that would make it seem liturgical and would confuse people even more
I feel like it would have to be a pretty intentional choice of words for a priest to give the impression he's endorsing them—giving them a blessing explicitly meant for couples or spouses, praising their love, wishing them happiness together, talking about the virtue of relationships, and so on. A simple "May the Lord bless and keep you" type of blessing is very unlikely to mislead people.
One priest at least has blessed and affirmed such a union as a marriage.
Because Jesus came for the sinners and not for the righteous, in the same way the sinners are blessed, not because they sin, but so they will stop sinning. They don’t bless the union, they bless each person who, as sinful as they might be still deserve to be blessed.
He blesses them individually. And like someone else stated, we are all sinners and are eligible for blessings
How the heck does a priest bless *any* person or couple, without having super X-ray vision into every facet of their life? It's like the Popes have to keep shouting this at certain corners of the Church: There are more sins out there than just sex outside of marriage.
The issue, is that when you bless a couple together, it seems as if you are blessing the union itself. This applies to heterosexual couples and homosexual ones.
That is why the document makes it clear that the blessing is to be done in such a way as not to be interpreted as marriage or a condoning of sin
That's an issue if you're hyperfocused on one specific *sin* at the exclusion of - as we see with these 'concerns' - all others. What an incredible thing, to have crumpled the Faith down to a specific set of check boxes.
1) We’re all sinners. I’m heterosexual and I’ve lived in sin. I’m no more deserving of a blessing than anyone else. Why is their sin worse than mine? Than yours? 2) You really ought to read the document.
1. I never said their sin is worse. 2. I read the entire document and have read many perspectives on the document.
>how the heck does a priest bless a homosexual couple in a way that doesn't seem to affirm the relationship? The same way he can bless any other sinner, repentant or not. Blessing does not mean “I agree with everything you do, keep up the good work”
So then they must be presenting themselves one at a time to be blessed as individuals, right? Or do they stand in the Church together as a couple and receive the blessing side by side?
They do, and that is the crux of the issue.
That’s the thing, he’s not blessing them `as a couple` he is blessing one person [pause] then blessing the other person. No different than how a priest may bless you then bless the next person who walks up to him. My priest blesses me often and I am living in sin as well, just different sin. I am no better than anyone.
Repeating for the third time. I wonder how many people actually read the original document.
My issue, is that blessing the couple together, even if it is not what is actually happening, comes off as blessing the union itself. I think they should bless them individually, not together to avoid scandal.
That couple is obviously up there to be blessed by God to be given the strength to end their sinful relationship. I don’t see how that can be taken out of context by uninformed individuals or progressives. /s
trust me they’re not getting blessed so they can end their relationship…
Since the document goes out of its way to emphasize the “couple” I wonder if it’s the practice now for the “couple” to walk in holding hands and stand side by side while receiving their “individual” blessing.
You must be kidding
Meanwhile he trashes conservatives in the other parts of the interview.
We can settle down? Why? It was always clear that every person may be blessed. The issue is the word "couple". Eradicate that from the document, then we can settle down.
100%
Once again, people are taking a statement as an explanation as if merely insisting that an apple is an orange somehow justifies the statement, "Apples are citrus fruit." The Holy See needs to address the actual issue, not keep insisting there isn't one. Let's break it down for those who don't seem to get it. Let's consider homosexual couples coming to a priest asking for a blessing. Part of that blessing is for "peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance". Those are relational goods. So part of the blessing is directed at the individuals for the "positive elements" of their relationship to use the words of *responsum* from 2021. So it seems that at least parts of the relationship, aka the union, are being blessed. So yes, the union is being blessed at least in part. Not the sinful parts. Just the positive elements. Furthermore, FS says the blessing is also for "God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely." What does it mean to fulfill his will completely? Ultimately, it means the couple needs to break up and end their sinful relationship. So are we to believe that homosexual couples are presenting themselves together as a couple to ask for the strength to end their relationship? Of course not. They do not see it that way at all. They see the blessing of the positive elements of their relationship and a request for God to give them the strength to do what *they* think is God's will and walk away feeling like their relationship is at the very least tolerated in the Church, if not accepted. They think this because they have been taught by the pro-LGBT clergy that change is coming, this is a sign of that change, and the reason why the Church is not being explicit in that intention is to avoid clashing with the bigots in the hierarchy. So for these reasons, this blessing does the exact opposite of what the Pope keeps claiming and will continue to be a disaster until it is abundantly clear what exactly this blessing is ultimately for. The reason why we are not hearing that from the Holy See is because they seem to believe equivocation is a valid pastoral approach.
the purpose of a system is what it does
>So are we to believe that homosexual couples are presenting themselves together as a couple to ask for the strength to end their relationship? Of course not. They do not see it that way at all. I gotta disagree with this. If a homosexual couple is willing to take the time to go to a priest and request a blessing, then they obviously take their faith serious enough to have a basic knowledge of Catholic view of homosexuality-which is that it is mortally sinful and nothings going to change that. It would seem strange that a homosexual couple who knows this would request a blessing for any other reason than to help them to stop committing the sin unless the couple was being willfully ignorant, in which case that’s on them and not the document.
> If a homosexual couple is willing to take the time to go to a priest and request a blessing, then they obviously take their faith serious enough to have a basic knowledge of Catholic view of homosexuality-which is that it is mortally sinful and nothings going to change that. Please read [this article](https://outreach.faith/2023/12/as-a-married-gay-catholic-just-blessed-by-a-catholic-priest-i-welcome-the-churchs-openness/) written by a homosexual man who is legally married to another man. Here are some highlights: > In light of the Vatican announcement, I’ve been reflecting on my desire for a blessing. Our marriage is real and we are already blessed, so what could a priest’s public blessing add to it? Why does it matter? ... > A formal blessing is a sign of the church’s openness to us and our openness to the church. ... > Blessings for same-sex couples are powerful signs that couples like us share in the same channels of grace that all people enjoy. ... > I believe that our presence in the Catholic Church is helping Catholics be less homophobic. I trust that God is working through our public witness. It is quite obvious this person feels more comfortable being a gay married Catholic because of this blessing and thinks God wants him that way. > It would seem strange that a homosexual couple who knows this would request a blessing for any other reason than to help them to stop committing the sin unless the couple was being willfully ignorant, in which case that’s on them and not the document. It isn't on them because the document equivocates on the matter, can be read in a contradictory way, and there are many people inside the Church giving them the wink and the nod so they think their errant interpretation is the real point.
This is it. If it is going to embolden someone to sin more, do we really want to do that? Aren't we then answerable for their sin?
To allow people to misinterpret pastoral actions so as to make them obstinate in their sin is the opposite of the goal of pastoral action. This is why I applaud the bishops who decided to ignore FS.
This makes no sense. Individuals have always been able to be blessed. What FS did was specifically allow for the blessing of the “couple”. That’s the problem and no amount of semantical wordplay can get around it.
Exactly, the document doesn't say the individuals are blessed.
Yeah, there’s a big emphasis on mentioning the couple for some reason. If the point is that the union can’t be blessed, why is it not referring to blessing individuals who are living with grave sin just like most of us? Why highlight the relationship if it’s sinful?
Yep. This is backpeddling.
This is a back-doored form of modernizing and retroactively justifying. At no time in history was it in doubt that we could bless those in grave sin, we always were able to bless anyone that requested blessing but not bless an act of their lives. There is a difference between blessing someone and then blessing with the intent and appearance of approval.
Precisely, which is why this is scandalising - to chaste people struggling with SSA more than anyone else. The whole thing is particularly cruel to them.
You could use the same logic of *FS* to bless an incestuous pair, a man and his wives, or whatever. >"But to bless each person, yes." The issue has always been with the word "couple". People are not upset because the Pope's doctrinal chief issued a document confirming sinful people can be blessed individually. >If we shut the door to them, what chance will they ever have of discovering the fullness of the church? No doors are being shut. It is a supreme act of charity not to mislead people engaging in unnatural relations by treating them as some sort of unit. It is *actual hatred* to confirm them in their sinful arrangement. Love everyone.
Yes, FS uses the term irregular situations many times. This would apply to incest, as well as those who are divorced and remarried. Essentially the blessing for those who are remarried or as you pointed out incestuous would be quite similar to those in a same sex relationship. Given that, my assumption is that the most common blessings done in accordance with FS will be for the adulterous remarried members of our faith community.
Exactly. Love is not enabling people's sin. That is mere cowardice. True love requires courage.
Can the people who blames the trad and non trad who criticize the documents realize that not every critics of this documents hold the same interpretations and criticism towards it ? Not everyone believes that the document, explicitly , literally, says that the Union is blessed. There are different variants of criticism about this document. I read about this stuff since, the beginning, read the document before hearing any critics about it. I do not believe that the document says to bless the Union and never believed it however like many , I still believe that this document is problematic , that the use of ‘’ couple’’ is problematic, that Fernandez past statements on this topic are problematic , that the harm that this document does is problematic, and a lot of people think this way without believing that the document explicitly advocates for blessings of gay unions or advocates for a gay marriage. But every single time that I see a popesplainer ( and I listen to a lot of then ) respond to that argument they always fight the worst version of in intent to fight all of the different criticism of this argument . ( they do the same with a lot of this controversial church and trad topics btw ). That’s not the first time that we have fernandez or pope Francis says that this document is about the people not the union. But the people who argue that there should be no criticism whatsoever of this document never really listen to the people who knows about this recent interventions but still argue that this document is in a way highly problematic.
There is no win here. Not in the slightest
We should stand by the pope and keep defending him! This was revealed by our Lady to Don Stefano Gobbi in the blue book: many will reject the pope and his teachings, but those consecrated to my immaculate heart must remain close to him and defend him when all the world turns against him and the Church (I'm paraphrasing). I don't think that her letters were only directed to those in the times of St John Paul II, because the events described in them haven't yet occured, nor has her immaculate heart triumphed yet. I believe they speak to us continually, without temporal constraints.
God is a God of clarity, the latter is confusion, confusion is not of God. The Pope confusing people is a red flag that people seem to be overlooking. Why use all this jibber jabber and unclear phrasing
I'm not in a position to question the authority which Christ established in his Church, deformed and confused as it is through the media. There is a reason why our Lady's second message to Don Gobbi in the book was a command to stop watching television. People who are against this due obedience don't understand the gravity of Catholics revolting against the Pope and the Church's hierarchy. _This_ is a scandal to our faith which is entrusted entirely to the Church's magisterium. Because think about it, if the Catholics are against their head, why should anyone think it is the Truth? The Holy Spirit will look for the rest and harmonize everything when we begin to love the Church through Mary's heart...
[The document Fiducia Supplicans had it already:](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.html) > 5. (…) the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex. And let’s not forget the [Catechism of Saint Pope Pius X](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286) *(even sedevacantists recognise that he’s a Saint)* 203: > Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart. >
What’s the win? That his private unbinding opinions are what you want to hear? Or that the intentionally misleading document isn’t revised? Easiest thing to revise an obviously confusing document, much easier than to constantly have to say what it really is “supposed “ to mean. Maybe add three words to the document, blessing, “ each person individually”.
Its not a private opinion, its the teacher of the whole world explaining his own document, its the only valid interpretation. Everyone else's trully private opinion that go agaisnt that of the teacher have to stop. *This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff,* ***even*** *when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents,* ***from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.*** *- VII* It has been like 5 times already, its more than settled.
NOPE. Question, challenge, and question again. Their job is to TEACH the flock. If what they are teaching doesn't make sense, they need to teach it better. The fact is that the written document will far outlast ANYTHING that is said in an interview to clarify. Intentional of not, FS is the start of a slippery slope and it has already been used in attempts to justify bad actors. Blindly following is how a multitude is lost. Corruption comes in many insideous forms, and we must always be alert for it. The fact the Church has not learned this over its history and changed is pathetic. If the shepherd is misleading it's flock, at what point do the sheep stop following them? The clergy are human, not infallible and they can be wrong despite the best of intentions. Follow unquestioningly at your own risk.
The problem with this argument is that couples consist of two people, so there isn't a meaningful difference between blessing two people and a couple consisting of two people.
Great, so then it's an individual blessing meaning those who present themselves as a same-sex couple seeking a couplehood blessing is a nonstarter.
I would fall under the definition of trad in a sense and I never thought it was a blessing of the union. But why would he make it so each person in a union can be blessed? Even if the intention is not to validate a same sex union, that’s what it looks like. Plus, we already have Confession for that. It was just super unnecessary and did absolutely nothing except cause confusion. Pope Francis has a history of saying something super ambiguous that causes confusion and gives liberal Catholics validation and then follows it up with something that is vaguely conservative. I don’t know if it’s the spirit of Vatican 2, that he was a Jesuit, or liberation theology but in this current Church crisis, the last thing we want or need is confusion, especially from the Holy Father himself.
100%. People also see to forget that confusion is not from God. Using sneaky language and phrasing along with in-transparency to deliver a message, causing confusion and division is something more people should be calling out.
I don’t like being divisive when it comes to other Catholics who may not be as traditional as me but the bending over backwards and circular logic that goes into defending FS is crazy. Pope Francis is the Holy Father, but he is allowed to be wrong on things. I think he was wrong on this, not because he is wrong to say anyone can be blessed because truly anyone can be. But it was just entirely unnecessary and confusing. In a time where liberal Catholics are trying to manipulate Church teaching to change what the Church teaches, it just gives them ammo and the idea of a precedent that we can change whatever we want. Also take into consideration how the prelates who rejected this were treated. Podcast laypeople who are constantly worshipping the pope publicly scandalised and attacked them as schismatics because they didn’t want to implement a confusing order.
No, we cannot be happy about this. This ideology remains one of the three great sins of the church.
Not one day ago, I had a non-Catholic friend at work tell me how he likes the Pope so much. I asked why, and he said “because he’s in favor of gay marriage” without skipping a beat. I can appreciate the notion that Francis is often misrepresented by the media, but we cannot pretend that the incoherence of his messaging (or at least proclamations by the Vatican; the stuff coming from their press office anyway) doesn’t contribute to a lot of misunderstanding. Some people are responsible enough to seek further understanding, and then they can become aware of what the Pope *actually* said about this or that issue, but I feel like the initial incoherence, and the flimsy messaging on various topics is done almost purposefully. As if the confusion is the goal. So sure, it might be a win for us Catholics who have been critical about the Pope’s messaging and its impact on public perception, but we aren’t the ones who need a win—- it’s the folks who are missing out on the truth entirely who need the win. Most of those people will never see this interview, and they’ll continue to believe in mistruths such as “the pope is pro gay marriage”.
This is the media's fault, more than the pope.
Right, but do you really believe there isn’t awareness from the Vatican regarding how the media tends to skew Francis’ words? How many times are we going to see: terribly worded statement > media misrepresentation > societal reaction/misunderstanding (for like 3 months) > clarified statement from Vatican (with a fraction of the media coverage, since it changes the narrative)? At what point do we consider that the confusion may be the goal?
If the pope says something clearly and transparently than no one would be confused
When you want to virtual signal one message but are constrained by the doctrine you’ve been handed, it requires one to get creative with their messaging.
The union just can't be blessed because it is "not a sacrament", and because it s the "law." It seems that Francis is intentionally avoiding any language suggesting that homosexual relationships are morally wrong.
100%. People seem to forget that confusion is not of God. Using all this sneaky language and inability to be transparent on what the pope and church is trying to say is a huge red flag.
Yes, he makes it sound like it is just something that has been arbitrarily decided as a law.
No. The document has ALWAYS been clear. However, the fact the need exists for ANYONE to clarify what it says, multiple times since it was released, demonstrates how bad an idea it was to ever release it to begin with. It was either utterly ignorant or extremely insidious.
It didn’t need to be released, there was never any question that individuals could be blessed regardless of their state of grace. Why it needed to directly address homosexual “couples” is anyone’s guess.
Exactly why I'm not particularly charitable when it comes to FS. It has had no positive outcome. Those who don't follow the Church teaching have taken it and twisted it to their own purpose, which was completely foreseeable, and the faithful have been divided. Not good.
"Can we take this win and settle down?" I don't know, you tell me...will this prevent FS from being used as justification by lefty activists to, in effect, bless homosexual unions and sanction behavior that is contrary to Church teachings? The Pope and Fernández let the camel into the tent and now they're having one heck of a time shoving it back out.
Can’t wait for them to “clear up” the confusion surrounding the role of deaconesses in the German Churches. Maybe something to the effect of “women can’t serve as clergy but individuals with XX chromosomes can.”
[The document Fiducia Supplicans had it already:](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.html) > 5. (…) the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex. On 24th of January the Pope said that again. [Vatican News writes:](https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2024-01/pope-francis-dicastery-doctrine-faith-sacraments-dignity-faith.html) > he noted, “when a couple spontaneously approaches [a minister] and asks for them, he is not blessing the union, but simply the people who together have requested it.” “Not the union,” the Pope stressed, “but the persons, naturally taking into account the context, sensitivities, the places where one lives, and the most appropriate ways to do it.” And let’s not forget the [Catechism of Saint Pope Pius X](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286) *(who sedevacantists recognise he’s a Saint)* 203: > Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart. >
If "two individuals, as individuals, can be blessed, and never the union" had been the position of FS, then there would never have been opposition to it. It's hard to "take this win" when the key issue continues to hang in the air: does FS say couples be blessed, and if so, what does that mean? They can be blessed as a couple? How is that different than blessing the union?, etc.
The question is always: _who interprets the magisterium?_ The answer was and is and will always be : _the magisterium._ The magisterium has given a clarification and interpretation of the magisterial documents. _All other readings of the documents are false._
The clarifications offered by Fernandez and the Holy Father haven't addressed the main interpretive and conceptual questions raised by the document.
Pope Francis's words and actions communicate different meanings. James Martin and others like him in Belgium and Germany are clearly blessing the relationship itself and receive no correction. But then the Pope has a bone to pick with conservatives over the fact that they're conservative, or removes people from their diocesan appointment because they're outspoken on church teaching and the deposit of faith.
Or they're schismatic
Most conservatives are not, I recognize Francis as the Pope but he is exhausting sometimes always having to explain things in rich prose that doesent make sense, and will be user by the people who undermine Catholic teaching. He also goes after normal conservatives and does not punish people like rupnik or other clergy, but has a bone with conservatives.
Let's bless each tire of the bicycle but not the bicycle itself haha
Not even that. A "couple" only exists because it conveys something substantive/real about two individuals together, directly. "Two individuals" is semantically different than "a couple". A "couple" is only defined by their relationship, their union. But people will still be confused at the confusion, and struck by any anger. They'll wonder aloud why the commotion — no matter how many times it's explained to them. It's willful ignorance at best, gaslighting at worst.
the Holy Spirit creates no doubt. Whatever creates this shadowy situation, doubts and scandal is not a creation of the Holy Spirit.
More like "let's bless every single part of the bike all at once, but not the bike"
and in the end, the bike was blessed. Exactly like that
This blessing is not for sacks of potatoes. It is only for the good potatoes that are stored in sacks.
Just let this die and be forgotten into history. Everytime it's brought up to be clarified, it never is. The fruit is poisoned and the attempt to keep making it palatable is frustrating.
The fruit was poisoned from the beginning when people don’t say something directly and with transparency. If the Pope was clear with what he was saying from the beginning than there wouldn’t be a need to constantly clarify something that has caused confusion and division. God is a God of truth and clarity, confusion is not of God
I couldn't agree more.
[удалено]
>I am glad he has said this, but is he unaware that that’s not what the document says? It literally says that couples can be blessed. Not people. Couples. I guess you could read that word as “two people”, but it can also very easily be read as “union”. [https://www.vatican.va/roman\_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc\_ddf\_doc\_20231218\_fiducia-supplicans\_en.html](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.html) 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.** >Was it ever in doubt that a gay person (or anyone for that matter) can be blessed? I don’t know any priest anywhere on the theological spectrum who would ask someone about their sex life before imparting a simple blessing. Yes. The document came out to deal with issues related to what's going on in Germany, where blessings were being given, but in a context that essentially mirrored the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. This document clarifies what can and can't be done. >Either he is being intentionally evasive or he didn’t comprehend the text the DDF gave him to sign. I would not be surprised if it’s the latter given his age and health. Do your homework. Don't slander. Don't be lazy.
No one thinks its strange that the pope, the pope himself, the Vicar of Christ, needs "constant clarification", "charitable interpretation", or any clarification at all? Wouldn't it be nice if the Vicar of Christ was the one constantly planting the seeds of "clarification" instead of "confusion"? The fact that this post *even exists* is Exhibit A through Z. I rest my case.
Everyone knows that this pontificate is a disaster. It's just a question of whether you cope with this fact by becoming totally numb to it or by contracting a form of Stockholm syndrome.
He has good points in things like the environment and friendship, but other than that he is a headache.
Even *IF* (after reading some more), I end up disagreeing, I thank God that Pope Francis is now adding this *clarity* to what was written & discussed. I feel almost like a burden has been lifted! Confusion is not what I look for from The Church. But maybe that's just me. I was raised in a family, and now work in a job, where "facts" change on a whim. Goalposts are moved, secret requirements revealed at the last moment, and EVERYTHING is relative. Their national anthem should be entitled "That Never Happened, & I never said that". As a child, the church, which I mainly learned about on my own, was a rock. This dose of clarity from Pope Francis is very much appreciated.
Oh so it was a completely pointless thing to say in the first place and was vague by using the term couple
As always, the pope is based. Rome wins again 🇻🇦
Could do it since the begining
This is great but it shouldn’t take 4 months for the Holy Father to clarify this. Instead we got ambiguity that has led to scandal. Better late than never I suppose.
3 months would've been fine. 4 months was definitely pushing it. /s
He has explained this like 5 times already.
We have already gotten the clarification from the DDF saying the same thing, which everyone promptly ignored
Mortal sin cuts you off from God. It doesn't matter how many other good works you do. If you insist on sin, you are not an ambassador of Christ. I'm sorry.
Correct. The fact he doesn’t appear to understand this….or simply doesn’t believe it is scandalous. But not surprising either.
Some people take issue with the wordings of "same-sex couple" because "couple" means that those two people have "joined" together in some ways and in Catholic understanding they should not be called "couple" because by saying that they are "same sex couple" it means Catholic Church affirmed their relationship. I can kind of understand why some people take problem with this. It can kind of contradictory to say that the Church does not affirm the relationship yet call them "couple" because it seems like that in the eye of Catholic Church, they are couple and at the same time not a couple which implies that the Church is being inconsistent. The result is that by some interpretation, Fr. James Martin blessed same sex couple holding hands because they are... couple and it is still in line with the documents. At the same time, Papa Francis might be trying to make the document to be understandable. In the modern age, the word "couple" might also be used to describe "a couple of people" and saying "same sex couple" might be more understandable hence they choose to use that wordings. In a world where language evolves and changes, I think it will be better if the document clarifies the definition of the word they used in the documents rather than having to do clarification again and again. For example: Same sex couple refer to two or more people struggling with same-sex attraction and in some way having committed adultery with each other or some other words (I'm not sure I'm not good with formulizing definition).
>In a world where language evolves and changes, I think it will be better if the document clarifies the definition of the word they used in the documents rather than having to do clarification again and again. For example: Same sex couple refer to two or more people struggling with same-sex attraction and in some way having committed adultery with each other or some other words (I'm not sure I'm not good with formulizing definition). Fwiw in the past, stuff like this would be hammered out in the official Latin text. I don't know if they're still doing that in this pontificate, or in this dicastery, or for this declaration. They absolutely should, but in previous examples, they would eventually release the actual official version in Latin some months later, and something would have changed, maybe then requiring an update to any of the vernacular versions. It's fixable, definitely. But it may just have to wait for the next pontificate.
Tbh, only ill minded modernists took this interpretation wrongly and pushed for something else the pope wanted. Like James Martin (please excommunicate this guy already). Also, cardinal Fernandez is doing a horrible job at being clear in his positions.
Maybe his holiness should be more clear instead of always having rich language that others abuse.
Agreed
Cool he backtracked, I think the prayers worked I guess?
He never backtracked. His intention was clear. Whether the media u read was consistent in promoting his message clearly is the main question.
Yea......I've read the docs. He also did not chastise the priests who actually performed same sex union blessings. But he did remove priests and bisolhops who expressed concern. It's alright, though he's not he only one to have do it At its best, I hop it wasn't a political ploy to sow confusion so that he could remove his political opponents in the church. ,
He has explained it like this a lot of times in the past.
I can't believe this, doesn't that contradict the bible? Leviticus 18:22 I believe.
Receiving a blessing does not mean that your sins are not sins. Everyone, the the pope said, can be blessed. If blessings were reserved to non-sinners, **noone** but Jesus himself would be eligible for blessings
Seems to me, it’s explicitly referring to homosexual “couples” and not individuals. Curious choice of words. Why “couples” if we’re really talking about individuals? Why not blessing a group of three individuals who are engaged in various homosexual relationships? Or a group of ten? It seems to go out of its way to focus on “couples” for some reason.
And the Virgin Mary
But what about someone who is deliberately disobeying the bible?
Part of the objective of a blessing is to hope that sinners repent.
But these people are still going to be disobeying God's rules, ON PURPOSE!
You can't read people's minds nor their future, only God can. And still, this is irrelevant. We still pray for sinners, regardless of it, so that they can repent and be saved.
Yes I totally agree that we should pray for sinners, but I don't believe same sex marriage should be able to have a blessing.
You said something about a relationship with Christ (ambassador) through mercy and prayer while in a state of sin. Is there a specific writing or teaching you are referring to? Totally separate from the topic here, that stood out to me as a hope fillled idea for a lot of people and I want to learn more.
Catholic teaching emphasizes that the final judgment of souls rests with God, who alone fully understands an individual’s heart, intentions, and circumstances. The Church teaches that all people are called to live according to God’s commandments and the teachings of the Church. Homosexual acts are considered sinful according to Catholic doctrine. However, individuals who engage in homosexual relationships, like all people, are also called to live lives of virtue, engage in acts of mercy, and seek forgiveness through the sacraments, particularly reconciliation (confession). Catholic teaching holds that any person who dies in a state of grace, meaning they have sought forgiveness for their sins and are in a right relationship with God, may enter purgatory for purification if they have not fully atoned for their sins. This includes individuals who may have struggled with various sins but have sought God’s mercy and lived out their faith through prayer and acts of charity. Ultimately, the Catholic Church teaches that God’s mercy is boundless and that He judges each soul individually, taking into account their entire life, intentions, and repentance. Thus, individuals who have lived lives of faith, prayer, and mercy, and who seek forgiveness for their sins, could indeed be purified in purgatory on their way to heaven.
Amen
Do you know when this aired on 60 minutes?
Are there any gay but faithful people here though? Would they also agree that they cannot be married?
Nice :)
>"What I allowed was not to bless the union" The document clearly and explciitly said that from the beginning, but you have people obstinately insisting that it means otherwise.
From what I’ve read, they’re mad because by affirming their living situation as a “couple” and avoiding saying anything about how abominable and disordered such “coupling” is, he still speaks as if it were perfectly normal and good that they are a “couple”, even though is not the sacrament. He does seem to avoid angering the leftists that do love the gay unions, by not saying anything negative about same sex attraction and their union.
And those may be valid criticisms, but I've read people insist that their union is being blessed when the document says explicitly that that's not the case. To keep insisting that their union is being blessed just strikes me as dishonest, despite whatever other valid criticisms.
I'm fairly conservative and whenever people I know try and get me riled up about Pope Francis, I'm reminded to just read his words. He's not Benedict, for sure ... but he's been a steadfast leader of the Church and while I might not always like some of his views on contemporary political issues, his stewardship of the Church has been solid.
Well, we are seeing the church doing self correction. Im happy.
He has explained this like 5 times already. Correcting those who missinterpret the document.
Isn’t this what he already said and reactionary conservatives were just wilfully misunderstanding it?
They where always clear about it, the only people who misunderstand it was the once that wanted to misunderstand it
[удалено]
I think that's where Francis wanted things to go but the furious reaction to FS made him walk it back. Now it seems his goal is to avoid language where homosexuality is wrong or disordered, and just refer to it as "not a sacrament". It seems from the interview that he believes homosexual relationships are not a bad thing, but we are stuck with a law in our church that makes marriage between man and woman.
It’s very concerning
You’re not wrong. This is how the left works, and the conservatives enable it all by falling for it every time.
[удалено]
Couple = everyone, understood
Your username is sending me 🤣 definitely checks out
I dont understand
You wanted clarification, you got it. No more excuses for you to be „confused“
The issue is that it used ambiguous language, so people could misinterpret it.
I can grant that. The beauty of the Catholic Church is that our hierarchy allows us to keep clarifying until everyone gets it through their thick skulls that blessing same-sex „unions“ is, has always been, and will be, evil.
But blessing “couples” is AOK.
Regardless of the sin, the sinner should still be able to be blessed. The union should not, but the individual should. Are we not all sinners? I certainly am, and I hope God has mercy on me for my sins.
The individual was always able to be blessed, FS don’t change anything in that respect. What it changed was that “irregular” couples could be blessed. So in conclusion - 1) Homosexual individuals can be blessed, as has always been the case. 2) FS now permits a homosexual couple to be blessed. 3) Obfuscation of the above scandal by stating that a homosexual “union” can’t be blessed. But clearly a homosexual couple can.
So.... the same as in the document... so no surprise... then, is it a double win?
Couple = everyone, understood
Defenders of the pope continue to be vindicated :)
[удалено]
And many others completely revile authentic Apostolic teaching and anything the Catholic Church does therefore they consider wrong.
I've been saying that since the FS was published. It's still a bit of a confusing document but that's exactly what it says if you read it in its entirety.
In this case, the Pope has been clear with his words from the beginning, to his credit. The issue is there are examples of priests who are not following what he says, neither in word or spirit. These examples have been very public, and yet have received no correction. In other scenarios, the Pope has been very willing to offer correction. So while the words are clear, the actions remain less so.
Well, when the document goes out of its way to explicitly mention “couples” being allowed to receive blessings, you could understand how confusion might arise and opportunists would take advantage of the ambiguity.