Pope’s Directive on Same-Sex Blessings Emphasizes Persons, Not Unions, Theologians Say

[Stella]

Over the last 20 or so years, I've realised that I had a kind of attitude towards gay people that did not recognise the dignity of the person. (There's much discussion going on at the moment about what 'dignity' actually is) So I completely get what Pope Francis is reinforcing with these definitions and how they aren't just semantics. They are essential for our Christian spirituality.

Theologians who have studied the Pope’s response told the Register that immediate media reactions miss the mark and don’t accurately capture what the Pope did — and didn’t — say.

In the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 2 publication of a text from Pope Francis responding to questions about same-sex blessings, media sought to portray the Pope’s message as a radical break from Church teaching and practice.

“Pope Francis opens possibility for blessing same-sex unions,” declared ABC News, running with a headline that was typical of how mainstream media described the Pope’s responses to dubia submitted by five cardinals earlier in the summer.

However, theologians who have studied the Pope’s response told the Register that these immediate media reactions miss the mark and don’t accurately capture what the Pope did — and didn’t — say.

One central critique: that the Pope’s focus was not on same-sex unions, but instead on same-sex-attracted persons who may be in some kind of same-sex relationship. In fact, although the question the Pope was responding to explicitly referred to “blessing same-sex unions,” the Pope’s response never spoke of “unions.” Instead, the Pope wrote of possible blessings for “one or more persons,” a subtle but significant distinction, theologians told the Register.

“It seems to me that the Holy Father has in mind the possibility of praying with an individual or with a couple who experience same-sex attraction,” said Father Thomas Berg, a professor of moral theology at St. Joseph’s Seminary and College in Yonkers, New York. “He envisions, on a case-by-case basis, a priest using ‘pastoral prudence’ to determine what — if anything — it would be prudent for him to do in response to a request for ‘a blessing.’”

David Cloutier, a moral theologian at The Catholic University of America, likewise emphasized the Pope’s focus on persons.

“It’s certainly not what some have suggested, a blessing of the union’s ‘holy love’ as a ‘mirror of God’s’ love,” said Cloutier, referring to a description of the Pope’s statement by New Ways Ministry, an LGBTQ organization not recognized or approved by the Catholic Church. “Unless Francis comes out and says you should bless the union explicitly, he’s talking about persons,” Cloutier said.

Cloutier also said that the Pope’s message was consistent with his “all pastoral, all the time” approach and said that Francis seemed to have in mind the kind of blessing a priest might give when invited over to a gay couple’s house for dinner.

“Clearly the object of the blessing is the persons,” he said, “and you can obviously bless two persons together.”

In explaining why the distinction between persons and unions matters, John Froula, a professor of dogmatic theology at St. Paul Seminary and School of Divinity in Minnesota, pointed to the Vatican’s March 2021 guidance on whether the Church could bless same-sex unions. In the response, which was approved by the Pope, the Vatican underscored that blessings of “particular human relationships” can only bless realities that are “objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord.”

“For this reason, it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage, as is the case of unions between persons of the same-sex,” the guidance reads.

While blessing a union “also implies approving it,” Froula said that “blessing people does not imply approval of everything they are doing.”

“It is asking for God’s grace through the Church’s special mediation,” he said. “In fact, someone might seek a blessing precisely to overcome some sin or temptation.”

The full article can be read here... https://www.ncregister.com/news/pope-s- ... ogians-say

[peregrinator]

Instead, the Pope wrote of possible blessings for “one or more persons,” a subtle but significant distinction

It might be significant academically but pastorally it will look exactly the same as an irregular union getting blessed. And by leaving the decision up to individual priests Pope Francis has essentially hung them out to dry.

[Stella]

Instead, the Pope wrote of possible blessings for “one or more persons,” a subtle but significant distinction

It might be significant academically but pastorally it will look exactly the same as an irregular union getting blessed. And by leaving the decision up to individual priests Pope Francis has essentially hung them out to dry.

I think Pope Francis knows that every Priest is capable in time of coming on board without fear of harming the faith. There is precedent that to “enlarge the place of your tent, stretch your tent curtains wide, do not hold back; lengthen your cords, strengthen your stakes” (Is 54) … allows people to make distinctions. For example with the sin of suicide. Allowing such a person a funeral and burial in sacred ground, did not lead to people being confused and in fact led to greater understanding and help for suffering people.

With the stigma gone it’s probable that understanding will lead to healthy types of care for those afflicted by homosexuality I believe.

[Doom]

No, there is no precedent, there can be no compromise on the issue. Pope Francis is waffling again, blurring the lines because he is a really bad theologian and frankly has no idea what he is talking about at least 90-95% of the time, which is why most Catholics, and even the Catholic media, pay no attention to his "teaching". It is not necessary for a Pope to be an expert theologian, most haven't been, but he really shouldn't be a theological ignoramus either.

[Stella]

No, there is no precedent, there can be no compromise on the issue. Pope Francis is waffling again, blurring the lines because he is a really bad theologian and frankly has no idea what he is talking about at least 90-95% of the time, which is why most Catholics, and even the Catholic media, pay no attention to his "teaching". It is not necessary for a Pope to be an expert theologian, most haven't been, but he really shouldn't be a theological ignoramus either.

That reactive outburst aside, you are wrong about 'most Catholics' on this topic. Nearly all Catholics know someone who is gay these days and lots of those are people closely related to them. Catholics living their day to day lives, want guidance on how to relate to their gay friend/loved one/co-worker etc that reflects how Christ would do it. The issue/question of gay marriage and openly gay relationships was not around when Christ walked the earth. We can only depend on the Holy Spirit to help us know how to welcome and engage people of this modern generation.

[Riverboat]

The issue/question of gay marriage and openly gay relationships was not around when Christ walked the earth.

Read the first chapter of St. Paul's letter to the Romans (18-32) then get back to us on that assertion.

[Doom]

No, there is no precedent, there can be no compromise on the issue. Pope Francis is waffling again, blurring the lines because he is a really bad theologian and frankly has no idea what he is talking about at least 90-95% of the time, which is why most Catholics, and even the Catholic media, pay no attention to his "teaching". It is not necessary for a Pope to be an expert theologian, most haven't been, but he really shouldn't be a theological ignoramus either.

That reactive outburst aside, you are wrong about 'most Catholics' on this topic. Nearly all Catholics know someone who is gay these days and lots of those are people closely related to them. Catholics living their day to day lives, want guidance on how to relate to their gay friend/loved one/co-worker etc that reflects how Christ would do it. The issue/question of gay marriage and openly gay relationships was not around when Christ walked the earth. We can only depend on the Holy Spirit to help us know how to welcome and engage people of this modern generation.

Absolutely none of what you said matters, there can be no compromise on the issue period.

By the exact same logic, one could remove every teaching of the Church up to and including the existence of God. It is absolutely unprecedented that there has ever been a society was composed of 60, 70, 80% or more of the population are professed atheists, isn't it time for the Church to get rid of that noxious stumbling block and embrace atheism? I mean get with the times already!

[Stella]

The issue/question of gay marriage and openly gay relationships was not around when Christ walked the earth.

Read the first chapter of St. Paul's letter to the Romans (18-32) then get back to us on that assertion.

So Pauls first letter to Romans is a really interesting Scripture. Rom 1 24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves.

Paul is addressing the sins of 'humanity' as the reason why God allowed homosexuality. Paul also says God allowed among us other sins.

29 They were filled with every kind of injustice, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die, yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

We can all find ourselves among this list (apart from the living Saints).

My take on this is that if God has allowed this cesspool of sin to happen among us, what is the best way to deal. Then you go into Pauls 2nd letter to Romans and instantly get the answer.