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

[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.

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.

Which is why doing nothing and remaining silent would still have been a thousand times better than doing what they did.

It tells me that they want the chaos, confusion, and controversy because that's how the dialectic is progressed.

Francis and Fernandez in regards to their pedagogical influences are Freirian through-and-through.

[Kage_ar]

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?

At the end of Mass, the priest blesses everyone, sinners and perfect people as well. Blessing me does not mean he is blessing the sins I commit. Blessing people is nothing new. I've yet to see a priest refuse to bless a person.

[Gandalf the Grey]

The document is a completely muddled and self-contradictory mess. If this was a one-off you might be able to explain it away, but just like AL the purpose of it seems ridiculously clear: use weaponized ambiguity to maintain airs of not changing Church teaching while progressively turning up the temperature of political secularism to the point where doctrine is just ignored into irrelevancy. Doctrine just becomes like the bones of dinosaurs ancient architectural ruins of the Roman empire itself; fascinating curiosities of an ancient past that one may spend a tourist minute thinking about, may even take a selfie next to, and that's it. Otherwise it just sits there in plain view, it's true significance merely a matter of insulated academic examination and discussion.

If James Martin-who is himself a consultor for the Vatican Dicastery of Communications-is so practically giddy about the document that he had this to say about it:

"Father James Martin, a prominent American Jesuit priest who ministers to the LGBT community, called the document "a major step forward in the church's ministry" to them.

In a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, Martin said the document "recognizes the deep desire in many Catholic same-sex couples for God's presence in their loving relationships," adding that "along with many priests, I will now be delighted to bless my friends in same-sex unions". -Reuters

Weird, I wonder what Fr. Martin knows that the Francis-splainers apparently don't?

Just like as when AL at first came out the claim was always that in no way was it intended to be construed as giving license to allowing divorced and remarried couples communion.....until it was, and the Vatican basically admitted as such.

I'm instantly reminded of this quote by Chesterton:
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob."

[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?

At the end of Mass, the priest blesses everyone, sinners and perfect people as well. Blessing me does not mean he is blessing the sins I commit. Blessing people is nothing new. I've yet to see a priest refuse to bless a person.

Yes true. I was wondering on this point though whether subconscious prejudice against gay people, could be what's making this blessing seem more intolerable to some people than a blessing on a heterosexual couple living in sin. I know my own views have evolved regarding homosexuality and that was mainly due to knowing a gay man (in a Catholic family) from the day he was born until now in his early 30's. It's not like you imagine when all you know of homosexuality is from lude exhibitionism like gay pride events.

[gherkin]

Blessing people is nothing new. I've yet to see a priest refuse to bless a person.

Exactly. Which does rather raise the question of why this instruction is supposed to be needed.

"Get out of here, I won't bless you!" said nobody.

Now, seeing these blessings turn into quasi-liturgical ceremonies with "couples" arrayed in wedding attire...nah, that'll never happen. Right?

[Stella]

Catholic speaker Katie McGrady gave a good interview on CNN today hitting the target on the point of this document. Human dignity and Gods love for sinners.

https://twitter.com/CNNThisMorning/stat ... 6667842791

[Gandalf the Grey]

[Stella]

https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/africa ... supplicans

Much is being made of Malawi and Zambian Bishops rejecting Fiducia Supplicans on Twitter. But little compassion is being shown for gays in Africa where they are the lepers of today. This update on homosexuality in Africa from a few months ago reveals that they even receive the death penalty in 3 countries.

https://www.reuters.com/graphics/UGANDA ... vakykrjva/

[gherkin]

Probably due to colonialism. I do note neither Zambia nor Malawi is picked out as imposing the death penalty for homosexual acts, which are, of course, a disease innocently picked up by their actors, like leprosy.

[Stella]

Probably due to colonialism. I do note neither Zambia nor Malawi is picked out as imposing the death penalty for homosexual acts, which are, of course, a disease innocently picked up by their actors, like leprosy.

Leprosy was considered deserved back in the early days of the Church, rather than a random disease... which accounted in part for their isolation from others.

[Gandalf the Grey]

Cardinal Mueller says that FS promotes blasphemous and sacrilegious acts that priests cannot do. That "pastoral blessings" is an utter novelty with no basis either in the Rituale Romanum or in Sacred Scripture.

In light of this, can a faithful Catholic accept the teaching of FS? Given the unity of deeds and words in the Christian faith, one can only accept that it is good to bless these unions, even in a pastoral way, if one believes that such unions are not objectively contrary to the law of God. It follows that as long as Pope Francis continues to affirm that homosexual unions are always contrary to God's law, he is implicitly affirming that such blessings cannot be given. The teaching of FS is therefore self-contradictory and thus requires further clarification. The Church cannot celebrate one thing and teach another because, as St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote, Christ was the Teacher “who spoke and it was done” (Ephesians 15:1), and one cannot separate his flesh from his word.

The other question we asked was whether a priest could agree to bless these unions, some of which coexist with a legitimate marriage or in which it is not uncommon for partners to change. According to FS, he could do so with a non-liturgical, non-official “pastoral” blessing. This would mean that the priest would have to give these blessings without acting in the name of Christ and the Church. But this would mean that he would not be acting as a priest. In fact, he would have to give these blessings not as a priest of Christ, but as one who has rejected Christ. In fact, by his actions, the priest who blesses these unions presents them as a path to the Creator. Therefore, he commits a sacrilegious and blasphemous act against the Creator's plan and against Christ's death for us, which meant to fulfill the Creator's plan. The diocesan bishop is concerned as well. As pastor of his local church, he is obliged to prevent these sacrilegious acts, otherwise he would become an accomplice to them and would deny the mandate given to him by Christ to confirm his brethren in the faith.

Priests should proclaim God's love goodness to all people and also help sinners and those who are weak and have difficulty in conversion with counsel and prayer. This is very different from pointing out to them with self-invented but misleading signs and words that God is not so demanding about sin, thus hiding the fact that sin in thought, word and deed distances us from God. There is no blessing, not only in public but also in private, for sinful living conditions that objectively contradict God's holy will. And it is no evidence of a healthy hermeneutic that the courageous defenders of Christian doctrine are branded as "rigorists," more interested in the legalistic fulfillment of their moral norms than in the salvation of concrete persons. For this is what Jesus says to ordinary people: “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.” (Mt 11:28-30). And the apostle explains it this way: “And his commandments are not burdensome, for whoever is begotten by God conquers the world. And the victory that conquers the world is our faith. Who [indeed] is the victor over the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 Jn 5:3-5). At a time when a false anthropology is undermining the divine institution of marriage between a man and a woman, with the family and its children, the Church should remember the words of her Lord and Head: ““Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few” (Mt 7:13-14).

https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/mulle ... ns-is-self

[gherkin]

Probably due to colonialism. I do note neither Zambia nor Malawi is picked out as imposing the death penalty for homosexual acts, which are, of course, a disease innocently picked up by their actors, like leprosy.

Leprosy was considered deserved back in the early days of the Church, rather than a random disease... which accounted in part for their isolation from others.

Citation?

[Gandalf the Grey]

Probably due to colonialism. I do note neither Zambia nor Malawi is picked out as imposing the death penalty for homosexual acts, which are, of course, a disease innocently picked up by their actors, like leprosy.

Leprosy was considered deserved back in the early days of the Church, rather than a random disease... which accounted in part for their isolation from others.

Citation?

Yeah, I'd like to see that too.

AFAIK Lepers were isolated and cast out of communities because leprosy as a disease meant they were unclean and they could infect others. Not necessarily because they "deserved" leprosy.

She's probably confusing that with the story of the man born blind where it was held that the man's blindness from birth was apparently according to the Law an indication of either his sin or his family's or both.

[Stella]

Probably due to colonialism. I do note neither Zambia nor Malawi is picked out as imposing the death penalty for homosexual acts, which are, of course, a disease innocently picked up by their actors, like leprosy.

Leprosy was considered deserved back in the early days of the Church, rather than a random disease... which accounted in part for their isolation from others.

Citation?

There's a number of mentions in the OT indicating leprosy as God's punishment for sin. ie the arrogant King Uzziah (2 Chr 26 16-20). When Miriam challenged Moses (Numbers 12:10–15) and after Gehazi disobeyed Elisha (II Kings 5:20–27).

[Stella]

I'm old enough to have been around when HIV AIDS first showed up. I admit to being one of those Christians that believed that God was punishing gay people with the disease and they deserved it. It seemed so simple to make that correlation. The majority of doctors and hospitals were refusing to treat them and then the Sisters of Charity stepped in in a very controversial way, opening a dedicated ward just for HIV patients. It was the only one in Australia back then. Recently a museum dedicated to the Sisters was opened in Sydney and those women are regarded as truly Christian women at a time when the general consensus was against them. You can read about that here...

https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/museu ... -epidemic/

[gherkin]

Leprosy was considered deserved back in the early days of the Church, rather than a random disease... which accounted in part for their isolation from others.

Citation?

There's a number of mentions in the OT indicating leprosy as God's punishment for sin. ie the arrogant King Uzziah (2 Chr 26 16-20). When Miriam challenged Moses (Numbers 12:10–15) and after Gehazi disobeyed Elisha (II Kings 5:20–27).

Q: When did "the Church" begin?

You're speaking of Jewish ideas about Divine punishment, which our Lord rather strongly repudiated, as, for example, at the beginning of the 13th chapter of St. Luke's Gospel.

[Stella]

Citation?

There's a number of mentions in the OT indicating leprosy as God's punishment for sin. ie the arrogant King Uzziah (2 Chr 26 16-20). When Miriam challenged Moses (Numbers 12:10–15) and after Gehazi disobeyed Elisha (II Kings 5:20–27).

Q: When did "the Church" begin?

You're speaking of Jewish ideas about Divine punishment, which our Lord rather strongly repudiated, as, for example, at the beginning of the 13th chapter of St. Luke's Gospel.

The early Church was still sifting through what distinguished Jewish ideas from Christian ideas and that included the idea that sickness was punishment for sin.

[gherkin]

There's a number of mentions in the OT indicating leprosy as God's punishment for sin. ie the arrogant King Uzziah (2 Chr 26 16-20). When Miriam challenged Moses (Numbers 12:10–15) and after Gehazi disobeyed Elisha (II Kings 5:20–27).

Q: When did "the Church" begin?

You're speaking of Jewish ideas about Divine punishment, which our Lord rather strongly repudiated, as, for example, at the beginning of the 13th chapter of St. Luke's Gospel.

The early Church was still sifting through what distinguished Jewish ideas from Christian ideas and that included the idea that sickness was punishment for sin.

Citation?

[gherkin]

I mean, in one sense there's no doubt that sickness and other such evils are punishment for sin. That's obvious. It's also clear that there can be visitations on a people due to their sinfulness, though the Church's insistence on the reality of nature and its secondary causality, though somewhat muted in its platonic period, really limits the ability to read divine retribution directly off of any calamity. (In the case of any calamity, personal or otherwise, it might be a wise thing to contemplate on one's own sinfuless, accept the suffering as a Divine gift, and offer it up in reparation. But that's more a spiritual matter than a doctrinal one.)

But the question here is whether the Church ever taught that the having of a particular illness by a particular person was in itself evidence of that person's personal sin. And since our Lord explicitly rejected that, I don't think you're gonna find Church Fathers making such claims. But as I say, let's see your citations. Then we'll have something to talk about.

[Stella]

But the question here is whether the Church ever taught that the having of a particular illness by a particular person was in itself evidence of that person's personal sin. And since our Lord explicitly rejected that, I don't think you're gonna find Church Fathers making such claims. But as I say, let's see your citations. Then we'll have something to talk about.

No, I wasn't claiming that it was Christian teaching that disease is divine punishment for sin. Just that it was an ideology that pervaded the culture at the time, a hangover from Jewish belief. There was little incentive to study and treat disease when it's considered punishment. I'm of the view that the same could be said of homosexuality today. We need to understand it's genesis and hopefully get clarity in the science fields that treat these issues.