Is the blessing of same-sex unions in any way compatible with Catholic teaching?

[zeno]

They might argue that a priest would not scruple if approached by an expedition asking for a blessing before climbing Mount Everest, by a group of students before exams, by young people before discerning for the consecrated life, by friends before setting up a private business... basically by any other group of people asking for a blessing prior to a serious undertaking.

So why not blessings for a same-sex couple undertaking the challenge of chastity?

...

For a formal blessing to be officially formulated with or without ceremony, a sizeable population requesting or "in need" could be one justification.
I am absolutely certain I am making a lot of false equivalencies as the Devil's advocate here, but to make yet another, the USCCB has a published Prayer for Our Troops to bless the soldiers being deployed, and the reason why such a prayer/blessing has been formally composed is that there is a significant population in need of it.

At present, all blessings on same-sex unions have been illicit, but I wonder if the Vatican is working to pave the way for these blessings to potentially become licit.

Yes, lots of false equivalencies. I didn't point this out clearly enough the first time you brought it up apparently. The cases of these blessings you are citing are in no way similar to same-sex "unions." What sets the groups of people apart in the cases you mention is mutual participation in a perfectly legitimate activity. Not the case with the same sex "couple."

[JanetM]

what I am concerned about is the Catholic Church claiming that such a blessing could be licit depending on the supposed moral intentions of the same-sex couple, regardless of whether the blessing is formal or informal.

Ok, first of all "the Catholic Church" is not making any such claim, as has already been pointed out.

Yes, it is possible that people who want to push something of the sort could use the kind of mental gymnastics you have been performing to make some sort of policy statement that could be open to abusive interpretations. Have you met the "Spirit of Vatican II" yet? Such a thing would indeed be scandalous, but we should not be surprised or shaken by it. Jesus himself warned us that there would be people who create scandal, but we should not allow ourselves to become scandalized by them. My advice is to focus on seeking peace in Christ and cultivating a deeper relationship with Him. Pray for all those in positions to be responsible for these things, but don't allow them to distract you from what is really important.

No, of course. What I meant was I concerned about the Church potentially making such a claim in future.

Yes, I admit that I am critically concerned by the use of mental gymnastics by various Church leaders. Before my mother left the Church, I unravelled a lot of mental gymnastics to persuade her that Pope Francis never made any unorthodox claims, even in his own right speaking as an individual. It was exhausting. And then, we heard the news that he supported same-sex civil unions in place of marital rights for them, and I felt so gaslighted: like, does the Church actually support same-sex unions?? The same Sunday my mother read the news, she stopped going to church. I don't bother rationalising any statement he makes as an individual anymore (which is the majority of the time that the news covers him anyway).

Nearsightedness on my part, but I can't help taking these mental gymnastics very personally.

As for the "Spirit of Vatican II," I've heard the expression but don't really know what people mean by it, as I'm likely the wrong generation and I don't belong to any traditional Catholic circles.

[zeno]

Do you have a reference for the claim that Francis supports blessing same sex unions? If it is the comments in this article https://apnews.com/article/pope-francis ... 68f1a2e66a it seems the Pope was speaking of civil protections in lieu of marriage rights - what a Civil government could do - not within the context of treatment by the Church. And again, not everything the man utters is speaking for the Church. He can be and not infrequently is wrong.

[Kage_ar]

No, of course. What I meant was I concerned about the Church potentially making such a claim in future.

I learned long ago that speculation only leads to anxiety. Christ said "be not afraid".

Yes, I admit that I am critically concerned by the use of mental gymnastics by various Church leaders. Before my mother left the Church, I unravelled a lot of mental gymnastics to persuade her that Pope Francis never made any unorthodox claims, even in his own right speaking as an individual. It was exhausting. And then, we heard the news that he supported same-sex civil unions in place of marital rights for them, and I felt so gaslighted: like, does the Church actually support same-sex unions??

Zeno already made my point. States allowing rights for same-sex couples is part of our directive from the CCC (bold mine)

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2358.htm

[JanetM]

Do you have a reference for the claim that Francis supports blessing same sex unions? If it is the comments in this article https://apnews.com/article/pope-francis ... 68f1a2e66a it seems the Pope was speaking of civil protections in lieu of marriage rights - what a Civil government could do - not within the context of treatment by the Church. And again, not everything the man utters is speaking for the Church. He can be and not infrequently is wrong.

Pope Francis has not made any comments about blessing same-sex unions that I am aware of. As you point out, he was speaking of civil protections in lieu of marriage rights, which I don't agree with. They should have their rights and protections as individuals, same as everybody else, but I am not of the belief that same-sex unions should enjoy benefits and civil protections intending to mirror marriage rights.

Maybe I'm being simplistic, but supporting civil rights for same-sex unions is pretty much the same for me as saying that there are certain aspects of same-sex unions that are compatible with Catholic teaching. If I had asked that question here instead of about blessings, I'm fairly sure that I would get mostly similar knee-jerk "nos" in response.

But yes, I otherwise understand that those statements by Francis were made in his personal capacity as an individual.

[JanetM]

Zeno already made my point. States allowing rights for same-sex couples is part of our directive from the CCC (bold mine)

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2358.htm

That interpretation of this CCC statement has never once crossed my mind before, and my understanding of it applies to the individual alone and does not extend to same-sex unions. Refusing any recognition to same-sex unions is not a sign of unjust discrimination. If the CCC is suggesting otherwise, I am seriously worried.

[Stella]

Pope Francis has not made any comments about blessing same-sex unions that I am aware of. As you point out, he was speaking of civil protections in lieu of marriage rights, which I don't agree with. They should have their rights and protections as individuals, same as everybody else, but I am not of the belief that same-sex unions should enjoy benefits and civil protections intending to mirror marriage rights.

Maybe I'm being simplistic, but supporting civil rights for same-sex unions is pretty much the same for me as saying that there are certain aspects of same-sex unions that are compatible with Catholic teaching. If I had asked that question here instead of about blessings, I'm fairly sure that I would get mostly similar knee-jerk "nos" in response.

But yes, I otherwise understand that those statements by Francis were made in his personal capacity as an individual.

Just a thing to remember... Pope Francis sees the bigger picture of pastoral care and is certain to be very aware that there are still 64 countries in the world that either jail or execute homosexuals as criminals. He has visited many of those countries half of which are in Africa. In the global west we can tend to assume what is going on in our countries is the sum of what needs to be addressed. We can be very insular even in our Catholicism. Pope Francis however has the ability to address problems with the whole world in mind.

[zeno]

For the record, what I was trying to say was not that the church obliges civil authorities to recognize same-sex unions, but rather if the civil government is going to make the error of doing so it should be via a civil union akin to what is offered as an alternative to people who are cohabitating without the benefit of marriage rather than pretending the same sex union is equal to marriage. Is this ideal? Hardly. But it's also not the same thing as promoting recognition of (let alone blessing) same sex unions.

[Kage_ar]

Zeno already made my point. States allowing rights for same-sex couples is part of our directive from the CCC (bold mine)

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2358.htm

That interpretation of this CCC statement has never once crossed my mind before, and my understanding of it applies to the individual alone and does not extend to same-sex unions. Refusing any recognition to same-sex unions is not a sign of unjust discrimination. If the CCC is suggesting otherwise, I am seriously worried.

Health Insurance, hospital visitation, child custody, fair housing, employment, and inheritance, are all things where unjust discrimination can happen even to the sinners we find the ickiest and we are called to fight unjust discrimination without qualifiers. In the US these things have been addressed via civil unions.

BIG difference between a civil union and a marriage as far as the Church is concerned!

[JanetM]

Zeno already made my point. States allowing rights for same-sex couples is part of our directive from the CCC (bold mine)

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2358.htm

That interpretation of this CCC statement has never once crossed my mind before, and my understanding of it applies to the individual alone and does not extend to same-sex unions. Refusing any recognition to same-sex unions is not a sign of unjust discrimination. If the CCC is suggesting otherwise, I am seriously worried.

Health Insurance, hospital visitation, child custody, fair housing, employment, and inheritance, are all things where unjust discrimination can happen even to the sinners we find the ickiest and we are called to fight unjust discrimination without qualifiers. In the US these things have been addressed via civil unions.

BIG difference between a civil union and a marriage as far as the Church is concerned!

The full benefits of healthcare, employment, and housing are all rights that belong to every individual regardless of anything, but providing additional partner benefits to those in same-sex unions serves to promote that union, which I don't believe we should be supporting in any way.

And as adoption by a same-sex couple is contrary to Catholic morality, I find that the question of child custody should be irrelevant, except in the case where the child clearly belongs to one party, whether through biological means or through adoption as a single parent or in a previous heterosexual marriage.

Hospital visitation, I believe, could be amended for everyone, as there are plenty of people without families but who might have a close friend that could offer support through difficult times.

As for inheritance, I don't see an issue, as people are free to dispose of their finances as they see fit through a will.

As far as the Church is concerned, yes, there is every difference in the world. But if we have shifted the discussion to the Catholic response to same-sex civil unions, I still don't believe in making compromises that in essence, give recognition to same-sex unions, even if it may be the lesser of two evils.

[Irenaeus]

I am sorry to say that I have witnessed such blessings during Mass at a nominally Catholic, nominally Jesuit, community in NYC. The article linked below gives details about many strange things at St. Francis Xavier in Manhattan, circa 2018-2019. Sadly, Cardinal Dolan has sat on his miter rather than do much, if anything, about it, and has refused to respond to my follow-up emails.

Jesuit Craters, Jesuits Cratering, and Margaret Sanger on Venus

[Stella]

My twitter feed is giving me nothing but this story and this alone. The Pillar gives the best rundown I've read so far.

https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/fiduci ... oes-it-say

It changes nothing regarding Church doctrine but in my opinion is more a catechises on the nature of blessings and the possibility of transforming grace for the situation.

[zeno]

Thank you for that article. The press are having a field day.

[Doom]

It amazes me how much the media brazenly lies, I stopped believing anything the mainstream news says about anything when they spent 4 years lying about "Russian Collusion" which they knew the entire time was a lie created by the Hillary Clinton campaign

https://www.youtube.com/live/RjbqbIIicq ... lwmEGtnFUM

[peregrinator]

But don't the Pope and his coterie know that the media are going to lie about what they say, or at very least add their own spin? The Curia isn't helpless here.

[zeno]

Given especially his health issues I wonder how much the Pope knows. One of the most interesting points from the Pillar Catholic article:

The text was not issued in forma specifica, a particular formula in which a curial document is effectively co-signed by the pope, giving it full papal weight.

[Stella]

What do others think of this thought. Is a Priest blessing a sexually active engaged couple who come to him about their wedding... of the same nature as a same sex couple receiving a blessing from a Priest?

[Gandalf the Grey]

But don't the Pope and his coterie know that the media are going to lie about what they say, or at very least add their own spin? The Curia isn't helpless here.

I willing to bet real money that the likes of Tucho Fernandez and Francis really don't care about it either way and that the document is worded as such to that end. That they're perfectly fine with the media construing their words towards saying that Pope Francis is endorsing same sex unions (because of course that's the popular modernist position through which Francis becomes the media's darling). They're also fine with letting Traditionalists react to the media specifically in order so that they and the Francis-splainers can pillory traditionalists as "reactionaries" and insist that "doctrine hasn't been changed." Which of course it doesn't need to be in order to essentially be made irrelevant.

What I'd like to know is what are they're really up to while using this as a smokescreen.

[zeno]

Nice response by the Diocese of Kansas City:

“The recent declaration by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (Fiducia supplicans) makes a clear distinction between different kinds of blessings. It recognizes that God desires the good for all persons, including those in objectively irregular same-sex or heterosexual relationships, and if one reaches out for God’s assistance, that should not be denied. It is inaccurate to say that the Catholic Church is now approving or validating same-sex unions or unions which are outside of marriage. The declaration makes allowance for ministers to bless people in these difficult situations that they may be assisted by God’s grace along the path of conversion and salvation. It is also most clear that these are not liturgical blessings and are not to be offered in a manner including clothing, gestures or words that would risk confusing the blessing with a sacramental marriage.”

[Doom]

But don't the Pope and his coterie know that the media are going to lie about what they say, or at very least add their own spin? The Curia isn't helpless here.

Even Christ was lied about by his opponents 'yes, I heard him, he said he will destroy the temple and raise it again in three days", didn't Christ know this was going to happen? Why didn't he prepare for it and make it impossible by explaining himself more thoroughly so no one could ever lie about him? Because that is not how malice works.