exchemist
Veteran Member
Compassion and mercy.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pope Francis allows priests to bless same-sex couples (not marriage)
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
Whilst that is true, the blessing actually is recognising and seeking to nurture everything that, from our standpoint, is good and holy and laudable in the relationship even if objectively it involves something that our Doctrine doesn't accept (but subjectively that doesn't imply any accountability to the parties, as one cannot judge).
The development here is that for the first time it's the couple that's in view for the blessing, not same-sex attracted individuals as individual persons being blessed apart from their sexual relationships. It is significant in that respect.
It's really a case of being Christlike and recognising that gay people or heterosexual cohabitants receiving blessings are earnestly striving to live good lives but just like sacramentally married heterosexual couples have sexual urges, desire companionship and romantic love and so are engaged in sexual relations that are objectively not in line with our Doctrine but practicably, in their circumstances, we recognise that these relationships still have so much good in them that can be embraced and enriched as they ask help from God to bring their lives into line with his will.
If we're talking here about a stable homosexual union, whether civil union or secular marriage, which could even involve children (adopted or via surrogacy etc.), then there's going to be a lot in that relationship that's admirable and enriching from the church's POV and so is worthy of being recognised and sanctified - such as the love, fidelity, companionship, support, parenting and so forth in the relationship.
In particular, claims Fiducia Supplicans, it entails “the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples.” Later on the Declaration repeats that what is in view is “the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex... that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit."
So, to be precise, this is not a blessing merely of individual homosexual persons on the one hand set apart from their intimate/sexual relationships but nor of the "union" itself in a liturgic, officiating way on the other.
Rather it is a blessing of a couple in an emotionally intimate, romantic relationship that's objectively not capable of being sacramental / marital for us liturgically because it involves an "irregular situation" (i.e. gay sex in this case, or heterosexual cohabitation), but the church is sanctifying all “that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships,” and that by the very act of asking for a blessing, the couple are “expressing a petition for God’s assistance, a plea to live better, and confidence in a Father who can help us live better.”
I expect that many gay Catholic couples will now take up this opportunity to receive a blessing from an ordained priest of their church and I pray that they find this sacramental ritual (not sacrament but a sacramental) spiritually edifying, uplifting, comforting and helpful in their lives. I like that this will now be part of a priest's pastoral schedule, alongside officiating at masses, weddings, funerals and other types of blessings outside of church. Mother church is there for them and with them, not against them and I expect this will serve to make that clearer.
Last edited:
"At this point"? What about things like this, which took place and were publicized long before "this point"?
About 333,000 children were abused within France's Catholic Church, a report finds
The decision to allow blessings of same-sex couples seems to me a step in the right direction, and I don't see it as a point against the Church at all. I don't think it's realistic to expect a religious institution to maintain the same stances for centuries despite changing political, religious, and scientific landscapes that bring with them new information and needs. I view adaptation to current evidence, such as the medical fact that homosexuality is neither unnatural nor harmful, as a sign of a healthy worldview.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The vast majority of that child abuse was male on male boy or homosexual. It was not the heterosexual priests doing this in the majority of cases. This is not framed that way, but that extra data helps to complete the analysis, so we are not stereotyping but coming to a better focus. This aspect of homosexuality, which dates back to centuries before the Church; Greece, may be what gives all homosexuality a bad name, since even liberals complain about it, indirectly, but leave it out, as unrelated.
The recent Vatican announcement of blessing gay couples in civil unions, but not as marriage, is an acceptance of people, but not the acceptance of a perversion of institutions, like marriage or how to relate to children. The Church has known this was a gay problem, but they traditonally helped otherwise good gay priests, by walking the fence between people and institutions. As Jesus would say, your sins are forgiven but sin no more.
I believe he is testing the waters for the inevitable introduction of gay marriage. If he doesn’t experience much or any backlash he will implement it much sooner. It’s one way to regain membership and credibility after all the sexual abuse cases as well as appease the priests and bishops. It’s basically all about pressure. I believe because the church is under enormous pressure to conform, they will soon make it legal.
You display pure selfishness, in several ways in one short non-answer. (Non-answer because you know full-well what the question really was about.)
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Well, I'll put it bluntly back at ya: You may judge others as far as where they supposedly will end up, but I don't do that. Nor did Jesus say we should do that. Also, "hate" is not "kosher", according to the Gospel.
Well to be equally blunt, no, I'm sorry, but if we want to get technical (which the Roman Church loves to do) that isn't what the Church teaches.
The Church teaches that the souls of people who die in a state of mortal sin go to Hell. To commit a mortal sin, three conditions have to be met: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. Those categories are explained in paragraphs 1857-1860 of the Catechism. And all "unrepentant sexual sin" does not meet all those criteria.
Jesus taught his followers to love even their enemies. (Matthew 5:43) When asked who qualifies as one's neighbor in the context of the command to love our neighbor, he tells the parable of the Good Samaritan, a related but distinct religious group from the Jews. Reread it some time.
With all that in mind, then, it's pretty clear that Jesus' call to love was universal.
Bishop Bätzing, President of the German Bishops' Conference
'I very much welcome this document and am grateful for the pastoral perspective it adopts. In Fiducia supplicans it is explained that, in principle, it is possible and permissible for the ordained pastor to respond to the wishes of couples who ask for a blessing for their partnership, even if they do not live in all respects according to the norms of the Church. This means that couples who do not have the opportunity to have a church wedding due to a divorce, for example, and same-sex couples can be given a blessing.' (machine translation)
'I very much welcome this document and am grateful for the pastoral perspective it adopts. In Fiducia supplicans it is explained that, in principle, it is possible and permissible for the ordained pastor to respond to the wishes of couples who ask for a blessing for their partnership, even if they do not live in all respects according to the norms of the Church. This means that couples who do not have the opportunity to have a church wedding due to a divorce, for example, and same-sex couples can be given a blessing.' (machine translation)
I figured I would have been one of 30 likes for that cute comment
It would not be an "irregular situation" at all if celibacy were involved.
Christ-like would explain the rational of either side of the reasoning.
The only thing science can tell you is that homosexuality occurs. The claim that homosexuality ought to be celebrated as an aspect of a "healthy worldview" is an ideological claim, not a scientific one.
I have not said that any particular person has gone or will go to Hell. What I did say is that the Church itself (even under Francis) teaches that those who die in mortal sin will end up in Hell. We know that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin. And we know that gay marriage is a theological impossibility.
All sexual sins committed with the consent of the will are mortal. Which is why a part of me sincerely hopes Christianity isn't true. Because by the Catholic Church's own standard (the one it claims to hold on paper at least) most people in this western culture are on the wide road to damnation.
No, that's still not correct. The person also needs full knowledge that what they're doing is gravely sinful.
Correct but as Amoris Laetitia noted on this doctrinal point back in 2015, it's not just about invincible ignorance.
More is involved, you may actually know the rule full well (i.e objectively that gay sex is not sacramental or approved) but be unable in a given set of circumstances to really understand the inherent value or applicability of this in your circumstances or in good conscience sincerely believe that you could live otherwise right now, actually without inducing greater sin (such as - let's use an extreme example - the loss of an intimate gay relationship that offers both parties needed mental health support, what if not receiving that kind of sexual love led a person to become suicidal in a given set of circumstances? Far better that they continue the sexual intimacy than that happening!):
Amoris Laetitia - Chapter 4 - Amoris
LOVE IN MARRIAGE 89. All that has been said so far would be insufficient to express the Gospel of marriage and the family, were we not also to speak of love. For we cannot encourage a path of fidelity and mutual self-giving without encouraging the growth, strengthening and deepening of conjugal...
amoris.ie
"301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations.
Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule.
A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.
Many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” [or in a homosexual context, celibate "brothers"] which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51)."
I think the issue here is that "sin" in the Christian tradition is not some kind of offence or rule breaking but rather 'disordered craving'. To quote the Epistle of James in the New Testament:
"Those conflicts and disputes among you, where do they come from? Do they not come from your cravings that are at war within you?
You want something and do not have it; so you commit murder. And you covet something and cannot obtain it; so you engage in disputes and conflicts."
(James 4:1-3)
In this respect, the Catholic understanding of sinfulness is closer to the Buddhist idea of dukkha, the suffering that comes from attachment and craving then it is to what you describe above.
Sin for Catholics is not about two categories of avowed "lawful" and "unlawful", and then lapsing into the “bad” pile, but rather in the tradition, a case of not having ordered one's cravings properly.
Viewing sin primarily as an "offence" would make it very difficult to understand what "salvation" (sozo) literally means in New Testament Koine Greek: to be made whole.
As such, Catholic theology can adopt far more nuanced stances than your framework in the above post would appear to admit.
This is what Pope Francis explained back in his 2015 apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia:
"301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations.
Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule.
A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin."
It's possible that you are working here with a different definition of sin from Catholics, namely the idea that it's some kind of rule-breaking infraction rather than arising from an inherited proclivity (concupiscence, the irascible power of the soul) not culpably sinful in itself but tending towards disordered craving that leads to "grave matter" which can produce mortal sin, what Judaism also calls the yetzer hara or evil inclination, that needs to be properly ordered / tamed by reason and conscience so as to become something beneficial rather than harmful (i.e. craving at war within you leading to immoral acts).
Sin for us is like a sickness, a congenital disease wounding human nature. It requires medicine, care and treatment.
If we had not 'fallen', in the Catholic doctrinal imagination, humankind would have remained perfectly free to make every moral decision but wouldn't have been plagued by selfish cravings which disordered both ourselves and the wider web of our human relationships, as well as our relationship with God too.
In his Spiritual Exercises, St. Ignatius Loyola (founder of the Jesuits) indicated that the exercises were designed to “overcome oneself, and to order one’s life, without reaching a decision through some disordered affection.”
Modern psychology has pretty much confirmed this - so-called "evil" people are severely psychologically disordered and defective. They are not "whole" but rather lack emotional states that most of us possess, namely in their case the ability to empathise with other people and beings pared with a corresponding callousness or cruelty.
But we are all "disordered" to a lesser or greater extent in Catholic theology - "sinners" in need of divine grace. Hence why we cannot judge others.
Last edited:
Again, footnote 329 from Amoris Laetitia [2015]:
And that's a judgment that only individual Catholic couples in "irregular situations" can make, by consulting their own consciences and considering their own lives, relationship and circumstances.
As Francis again noted in Amoris Laetitia almost a decade ago now:
He said of the church: "We have been called to form consciences, not replace them."
And that's a judgment that only individual Catholic couples in "irregular situations" can make, by consulting their own consciences and considering their own lives, relationship and circumstances.
As Francis again noted in Amoris Laetitia almost a decade ago now:
"it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God's grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end." (paragraph 305)
"A pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in 'irregular' situations, as if they were stones to throw at people's lives. This would bespeak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, 'judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families'". (paragraph 305)
He said of the church: "We have been called to form consciences, not replace them."
Last edited:
People are seeking a change in Catholic teaching precisely because they know darn well what the Church teaches regarding sexual morality. This is not a question of ignorance. They know. Everyone knows. But the progressive fraction in the Church will release one long winded document after another pretending that it's all so much more complicated than it really is.
At this point, I just want them to be honest. I want the progressive clergy (empowered by Francis) to just say it up front. They reject Catholic teaching on issues of sexuality. I want this pontificate to cease its doublespeak and be up front with what it actually believes. If it's liberal mainline Protestantism in all but name, then fine, so be it.
Last edited:
Ok, so in this case blessing those people means Pope is asking God to show compassion and mercy for them? I have no problem with that, but maybe it would be best to say it like that, instead of using the word bless.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
PF simply hasn't been that explicit which is one reason why the conservative bishops are not pleased. His repeated stance is to let God do the judging.
Also, a reminder that gay marriage is based on love, and I don't think love should be discouraged. It seems that there's too little of it nowadays.