Vatican officially OKs Catholic blessings for gay couples

[dUSt]

In major doctrinal shift, Vatican officially OKs Catholic blessings for gay couples | National Catholic Reporter (ncronline.org)

Thoughts?

[KnightofChrist]

Allowing a thing without directly stating it will be allowed. Which in practice will be allowed and in many places become the defacto norm.

A lukewarm, sideways, yes and no to blessing sodomic unions.

[Luigi]

I see it as problematic, to say the least. 

1. It will be intentionally misinterpreted by boatloads of people, most of whom aren't religious, or Christian, or Catholic, or theologians, or may not even have read the original document. 

2. One thing leads to another. Will the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith next approve the blessing of heterosexual couples living together without benefit of marriage? I don't really see a big difference between a gay couple and a heterosexual couple living together. Or will they allow the blessing of more-than-two people who are in a committed relationship (bigamy; polygamy; I know a gay quartet who are in "exclusive relationship" - it may just be a safe-sex arrangement, but assuming they're "in LOVE," what would be the difference between them and a couple?). 

3. The idea of NOT having standardized blessings puzzles me. The Church tends to standardize everything (with some optional additions and deletions, of course). There's a Book of Blessings - words to say when the priest blesses a house, a religious medal, dogs on the feast of St. Roch, animals on the feast of St. Francis, bells, altars, church organs, and on and on. So to allow every priest who blesses a union to make it up as he goes along seems contradictory and open to all sorts of abuse. 

But I'm just the fool in the pew. I learned decades ago to keep my mouth shut and my wallet open. That's my only sure way into heaven. 

Edited December 18, 2023 by Luigi

[dUSt]

I think it shows the bias of the "National Catholic Reporter" to use a headline that says "major doctrinal shift". What doctrine is shifting? lol

[Nunsuch]

This article responds to some of what @Luigi said above, and is worth reading for those of you who have not examined the actual Vatican document.

https://religionnews.com/2023/12/18/5-things-the-catholic-churchs-document-on-same-sex-blessings-does-and-doesnt-say/

[Machine_Washable]

4 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Allowing a thing without directly stating it will be allowed. Which in practice will be allowed and in many places become the defacto norm.

A lukewarm, sideways, yes and no to blessing sodomic unions.

I work with a Jew and we discuss religion. Islam and Judaism both have the same concept that you don’t just forbid the sin but you also forbid that which leads to the sin and that which gives the impression that a sin is not a sin. For example, Muslims do not drink. But we are also not supposed to go hang out in a bar because it gives the impression that alcohol is not forbidden. 
 

I don’t understand how this makes sense. Doesn’t it give the impression that gay sex is ok? I read the article and it said that technically the priest only blesses what is good in their lives. That seems to me to be ignoring the reality of how this will be perceived. This isn’t really my business, but it kind of is. Islam is not seen as mainstream here. If all the well know religions accept this then it makes it harder for our mosques and schools to hold fast. 

[KnightofChrist]

5 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

This article responds to some of what @Luigi said above, and is worth reading for those of you who have not examined the actual Vatican document.

https://religionnews.com/2023/12/18/5-things-the-catholic-churchs-document-on-same-sex-blessings-does-and-doesnt-say/

Important context for Readers: Claire Giangravéh, the author of the article in the link provided is a contributor to heterodoxal/progressive oulets National Catholic Reporter (NCR) and America Magazine.

Edited December 19, 2023 by KnightofChrist

[Anomaly]

@Nunsuch   Thanks for the link.   There is much less to this than what is being said.  
 

Simply, a same sex couple can ask a priest for a private blessing and the priest may do so.  It is intended to encourage the couple to seek God’s grace to live and behave per previous Christian instruction.   
With chastity and humility.   
It is not condoning sex outside a sacramental marriage, it is not sanctioning them as a unified couple in society or in the Church.  
 

As is human nature, many will twist an act of kindness into something more than was intended.   Kinda like accepting the wheat with the chaff, loving the sinners, not the sins.   
 

We aren’t in Iraq or Iran or Saudi… where we would imprison or execute them.  

[dUSt]

After thinking about this for a while, I can also see this recent document as a reining in of some of the abuses that may have been occurring. For example, some priests may have been giving gay couples a formalized ceremony or holding events for gay couples to get blessed. This document actually formally and specifically forbids such things now. So... a positive? Maybe?

[KnightofChrist]

How does a priest bless a couple together without blessing their relationship or union? Blessing the couple is blessing Gay unions. What form will the "spontaneous" blessings take? Whatever the priest and the couple wants.

28 minutes ago, dUSt said:

After thinking about this for a while, I can also see this recent document as a reining in of some of the abuses that may have been occurring. For example, some priests may have been giving gay couples a formalized ceremony or holding events for gay couples to get blessed. This document actually formally and specifically forbids such things now. So... a positive? Maybe?

Spontaneous blessings leaves the door open for all types of abuse. Additionally, the line quoted below should be cause for concern.

"Thus, beyond the guidance provided above, no further responses should be expected about possible ways to regulate details or practicalities regarding blessings of this type"

They're going to set this loose and let it run free. In Germany and other liberal/progressive parts of the world there will be gay weddings in all but name. It may look like weddings but it will just be a spontaneous working of the Spirit.

44 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

@Nunsuch   Thanks for the link.   There is much less to this than what is being said.  
 

Simply, a same sex couple can ask a priest for a private blessing and the priest may do so.  It is intended to encourage the couple to seek God’s grace to live and behave per previous Christian instruction.   
With chastity and humility.   
It is not condoning sex outside a sacramental marriage, it is not sanctioning them as a unified couple in society or in the Church.  
 

As is human nature, many will twist an act of kindness into something more than was intended.   Kinda like accepting the wheat with the chaff, loving the sinners, not the sins.   
 

We aren’t in Iraq or Iran or Saudi… where we would imprison or execute them.  

"Officially" that is 'true', unofficially that is not how it will be in practice.

[Nunsuch]

11 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Important context for Readers: Claire Giangravéh, the author of the article in the link provided is a contributor to heterodoxal/progressive oulets National Catholic Reporter (NCR) and America Magazine.

Can you identify anything in the article I posted which is factually incorrect, or which misrepresents the Vatican document? And "heterodox" is not a synonym for "progressive" (or for conservative). You are revealing your biases more than any substantive response. 

47 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

@Nunsuch   Thanks for the link.   There is much less to this than what is being said.  
 

Simply, a same sex couple can ask a priest for a private blessing and the priest may do so.  It is intended to encourage the couple to seek God’s grace to live and behave per previous Christian instruction.   
With chastity and humility.   
It is not condoning sex outside a sacramental marriage, it is not sanctioning them as a unified couple in society or in the Church.  
 

As is human nature, many will twist an act of kindness into something more than was intended.   Kinda like accepting the wheat with the chaff, loving the sinners, not the sins.   
 

We aren’t in Iraq or Iran or Saudi… where we would imprison or execute them.  

This is precisely why I posted the article, and why I suggest that anyone concerned go directly to the actual document (which is on the Vatican website, in English). 

[Anomaly]

So essentially, the Pope has said that a same sex couple are encouraged to see a priest to ask for God’s graces, ask and receive blessing from the priest/Church, to seek the graces to live chastely as individual children of God.   
 

I’ve read many German bishops are mad because it disses irregular couples and isn’t what they want    Most posters here think it just okayed gay couples   
 

It’s priests, bishops, religious, laity, that have other agenda that are reinterpreting it to condone gay marriage , impugn conservative Catholics, rile up Conservatives, etc.    

Same ol’ Catholic Church for 2,000 years.   

[KnightofChrist]

38 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

So essentially, the Pope has said that a same sex couple are encouraged to see a priest to ask for God’s graces, ask and receive blessing from the priest/Church, to seek the graces to live chastely as individual children of God.   
 

I’ve read many German bishops are mad because it disses irregular couples and isn’t what they want    Most posters here think it just okayed gay couples   
 

It’s priests, bishops, religious, laity, that have other agenda that are reinterpreting it to condone gay marriage , impugn conservative Catholics, rile up Conservatives, etc.    

Same ol’ Catholic Church for 2,000 years.   

An ambiguous document and it plays word games. The same but not the same. How is blessing a couple together not a blessing of the relationship/union? Blessing the couple is blessing their union. The document may say they're being blessed as individuals but it also says as same-sex couples. The idea this is not an attempt to change Church teaching is naive at best.

I don't believe the German bishops are actually that upset. They've been given a early Christmas present. They pushed the envelope before and now they'll go further.

This will be like communion in the hand, extraordinary ministers, altar girls, and all the other small at first exceptions that effectively became the norm. More movement of the Spirit of Vatican II or the synodal way.

Edited December 19, 2023 by KnightofChrist

[fides' Jack]

23 hours ago, Luigi said:

I don't really see a big difference between a gay couple and a heterosexual couple living together.

Unfortunately this is an error.  There is a big difference between these.  Both are mortal sins, but the difference is going to be 1,000 degrees (or some other arbitrary number) in eternal hellfire.  Or to think of it another way, and to use Dante's poetry, the sodomite will be 5 levels deeper (out of 9).

23 hours ago, Luigi said:

But I'm just the fool in the pew. I learned decades ago to keep my mouth shut and my wallet open. That's my only sure way into heaven. 

Naturally, and as I'm sure you know, that plan might make the priest happy, but it will ultimately land you in the other place.

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

How does a priest bless a couple together without blessing their relationship or union? Blessing the couple is blessing Gay unions. What form will the "spontaneous" blessings take? Whatever the priest and the couple wants.

Precisely.  If ever the word "scandal" were defined, this is the example that would be used.  If this is not scandalous, nothing is.

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

It’s priests, bishops, religious, laity, that have other agenda that are reinterpreting it to condone gay marriage , impugn conservative Catholics, rile up Conservatives, etc.    

Same ol’ Catholic Church for 2,000 years.  

If there are priests, bishops, religious, laity, and others that are reinterpreting it to condone gay marriage, impugn conservative Catholics, rile up Conservatives, etc..., then publishing it was a flagrant error and one of the worst, if not the worst, scandal ever in the Church's history. 

Of course you're right, it is the same ol' Catholic Church for the last 2,000 years - but that Church is not found anywhere around this document.  The Church will go on, and will continue to persist in the exact same beliefs she has maintained for 2,000 years, despite this document.

I wish I could find a source for this, but it is eluding me, currently...  I recently read about a saint in the past who corrected a bishop, not because the bishop had fallen into error, but because what he did was perceived as having fallen into error.  If some can take what is put out by the Vatican as a change in faith or morals, then the Vatican was wrong to put it out, and caused grave scandal.  This, sadly, is nothing new for this pontificate.

Certainly, we know now that Fr. James Martin believes it to be a substantial change:

 

All Catholics who know their faith, however, are not so much scandalized by this as saddened by it.  This has surely offended Our Lord deeply.  The scandal comes in when those who don't know better are otherwise affected by it, and maybe start to believe something like, "maybe homosexuality isn't that bad, after all," or other such heretical thoughts.

All Catholics who know their faith are already aware that any such attempts to "bless" a homosexual couple are fruitless.  No blessing will be bestowed on them by God so long as they call themselves a couple.

In the end, I believe this will only serve to provide a means of outing faithful priests so they can be persecuted.

Edited December 19, 2023 by fides' Jack

[Luigi]

Can someone set up a calendar or an Excel spreadsheet, so we can document the slippery slope as it evolves? Everyone says The Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy, but I've seen it play out in numerous situations in public life  (decriminalization of marijuana, legalization of medical marijuana, legalization of recreational marijuana; in my state, I smell marijuana coming from another vehicle every time I go for a drive... even though recreational marijuana is supposedly confined to residential use) and in Church life. 

18-12-2023 - Fiducia supplicans published

DATE - Two diocesan priests have their union blessed. (Yes, I know that
             involves a vow of celibacy, which lay people don't take, but as I
             understand it, celibacy in its technical sense means "to not marry - 
             cf. Wikipedia "Celibacy (from Latin caelibatus) is the state of 
             voluntarily being unmarried, sexually abstinent, or both, usually for
             religious reasons." And we all know priests who are/were not celibate.
             But the blessing of a union is not a marriage; cf. Fiducia supplicans)

DATE - Two women religious, men religious, nuns, or monks have their union
             blessed. (Same as above)

DATE - Bishop publishes his (re-)interpretation of Fiducia supplicans with
             guidelines for pastoral practice in his diocese, expanding on what is
             contained in Fiducia supplicans (perhaps standard wording for the
             blessing, perhaps wedding attire, perhaps self-written vows by the
             couple, etc.)

DATE - Same-sex unions are blessed in churches

DATE - Same-sex unions are blessed within liturgies

If any/all of this comes to pass, I'd like to be able to refer to a timeline without having to scour the Internet for every first in every diocese around the world to find the documentation. And if none of it comes to pass, this would be a good way to document that the Vatican has held the line on this particular slippery slope. 

Edited December 19, 2023 by Luigi