There was a flurry of both despair and excitement earlier this week, when Pope Francis answered questions raised by a group of five cardinals on a series of questions—about the nature of God’s revelation, the possibility of the ordination of women, the role and authority of bishops in relation to the pope, the relation of repentance and forgiveness, and the blessing of same-sex relationships. All of these look very interesting to me, especially the comment on the nature of God’s revelation and its interpretation. But of course UK commentators were only interested in one of these! And campaigners for change in the Church of England seized on this as a sign that (to quote Steve Chalke):
The tide of inclusion continues to roll in, and the sandcastle of resistance is further overwhelmed, as one by one those who represent the institutions who built it signal they have different ideas about the Church’s King Canute thinking.
Setting aside the misunderstanding of Canute, it is fascinating that Steve characterises the considered view of church catholic down the ages as a sandcastle. By contrast to Steve and others reacting to this ‘news’, we would do well to read exactly what Pope Francis has said, and put it in some sort of context.
Part of the context is a previous response to a previous dubium published as recently as 2021. You don’t have to read Italian in order to see the clarity of this answer:
AL QUESITO PROPOSTO:
La Chiesa dispone del potere di impartire la benedizione a unioni di persone dello stesso sesso?SI RISPONDE:
Negativamente.
(You can read all these on the Vatican website, both in Italian and in other languages, including English. The feature I like best on the website is the filter for searches ‘by century’…!)
But in fact this Responsum has several important features. First, it aims to be as generous as possible in engaging with the question, recognising the good will and good intentions of those seeking to bless same-sex relationships. Second, it clarifies the significance of ‘blessing’ a relationship with prayer (something the C of E has rather struggled to describe), calling is a ‘sacramental’, language that this week’s Responsum also uses:
Among the liturgical actions of the Church, the sacramentals have a singular importance: “These are sacred signs that resemble the sacraments: they signify effects, particularly of a spiritual kind, which are obtained through the Church’s intercession. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions of life are sanctified”[3]. The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies, then, that “sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church’s prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it” (#1670).
Blessings belong to the category of the sacramentals, whereby the Church “calls us to praise God, encourages us to implore his protection, and exhorts us to seek his mercy by our holiness of life”[4]. In addition, they “have been established as a kind of imitation of the sacraments, blessings are signs above all of spiritual effects that are achieved through the Church’s intercession”[5].
This sets the scene for answering the question of whether it is possible to ‘bless’ same-sex relationships:
Consequently, in order to conform with the nature of sacramentals, when a blessing is invoked on particular human relationships, in addition to the right intention of those who participate, it is necessary that what is blessed be 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. Therefore, only those realities which are in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by the Church.
For this reason, it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex[6]. The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan.
In a neat summary, this expresses a position which is almost exactly aligned with the Church of England’s formal position as expressed in Canon law.
That leads us to consider Pope Francis’ new statement. Ven Dr Edward Dowler, the Archdeacon of Hastings in Chichester Diocese, offers this very helpful commentary on the part of the Responsum related to same-sex relationships.
In the context of the current Synod on Synodality taking place in Rome, Pope Francis has responded to a series of five dubia or questions, submitted by a group of cardinals who are suspicious of what they see as liberalising trends in the Church.
Francis’s response to the second of these on the subject of same-sex unions has already been warmly welcomed by some high profile Anglican commentators as a ‘monumental’ development; indeed, the contention is that the Roman Catholic Church has now leap frogged over the Church of England into a more progressive position.
In reality, there would be an outcry if the Pope’s responses had been written by any bishop in the Church of England – indeed there already has been, when our bishops have made similar statements. Yet, Francis’s statement perhaps does point to an ecumenical way forward that combines theological clarity with compassion. The dubium and responses are reproduced below, with short glosses in italics from me, which attempt to explain some of their connotations in an English and Anglican context.
2. Dubium regarding the assertion that the widespread practice of blessing same-sex unions is in accordance with Revelation and the Magisterium (CCC 2357).
According to the Divine Revelation, attested in Sacred Scripture, which the Church teaches, “listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit” (Dei Verbum, 10), “In the beginning,” God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them, and blessed them to be fruitful (cf. Genesis 1:27-28) and hence, the Apostle Paul teaches that denying sexual difference is the consequence of denying the Creator (Romans 1:24-32). We ask: can the Church deviate from this “principle,” considering it, in contrast to what was taught in Veritatis splendor, 103, as a mere ideal, and accept as a “possible good” objectively sinful situations, such as unions with persons of the same sex, without departing from the revealed doctrine?
Pope Francis’s Response to the Second Dubium
a. The Church has a very clear understanding of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to procreation. Only this union can be called “marriage.” Other forms of union realize it only in “a partial and analogous way” (Amoris Laetitia 292), so they cannot be strictly called “marriage.”
There is a clear understanding of what marriage is in the Bible and the Christian tradition. Other forms of union may have some similarity to marriage, but they are not marriage.
b. It is not just a matter of names, but the reality we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that requires an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal.”
Church teaching is that male/female marriage is a ‘thing’: an actual institution that exists in the lives of men and women, and does not just a distant ideal that we may strive for, or a malleable concept that can be redescribed.
c. For this reason, the Church avoids any type of rite or sacramental that might contradict this conviction and suggest that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.
In the UK context, this indicates that the Pope might accept civil partnerships as legal and social arrangements between people, but emphasises that they should not be celebrated in such a way as to make it seem as though they are marriage in the proper sense.
d. However, in our relationships with people, we must not lose the pastoral charity, which should permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defence of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity; it also includes kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot be judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.
Charity (love) is of course always of prime importance in any discussion of human relationships.Part of charity is to speak the objective truth (i.e., that marriage is a ‘thing’ as per points a and b) but speaking objective truth cannot be the whole – the sum total – of a charitable response, which also must include an understanding and compassionate approach to people’s individual circumstances.
e. Therefore, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey a mistaken concept of marriage. For when a blessing is requested, it is expressing a plea to God for help, a supplication to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us live better.
So long as a ‘mistaken concept of marriage’ is not implied, pastors should be free to bless and pray with their people in different circumstances. This is a matter for their prudential judgment as, together with people who have approached us, we place our trust in God to guide and help us.
f. On the other hand, although there are situations that are not morally acceptable from an objective point of view, the same pastoral charity requires us not to simply treat as “sinners” other people whose guilt or responsibility may be mitigated by various factors affecting subjective accountability (Cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et paenitentia, 17).
In the document that is referenced, John Paul II acknowledges that ‘there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint and which have an influence on the sinner’s subjective culpability’. The teaching here is a nuanced one: on the one hand, moral standards have an objective quality, and yet the experienced fact of what we call ‘sexual orientation’ (surely one of the ‘complex and obscure’ factors to which JPII refers) can mitigate behaviour that seems to fall short of those standards. In a nutshell, same-sex relationships should not be viewed in a simplistic way as just ‘sin’.
g. Decisions that may be part of pastoral prudence in certain circumstances should not necessarily become a norm. That is, it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops’ Conference, or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially enable procedures or rituals for all kinds of matters, because not everything that “is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances can be elevated to the level of a rule” as this “would lead to an intolerable casuistry” (Amoris laetitia, 304). Canon law should not and cannot cover everything, nor should Episcopal Conferences with their varied documents and protocols claim to do so, as the life of the Church flows through many channels other than normative ones.
Individual decisions of pastors, acting compassionately in particular circumstances are one thing (as per point e above), but this does not mean that the Church, or individual provinces within it, should publish prayers, rituals and protocols, etc. that may then be seen as being normative (i.e., setting a norm for everybody else). In Church of England terms, this would be a strong preference for more informal and ad hoc pastoral and liturgical responses rather than published prayers, including Prayers of Love and Faith.
In conclusion, a striking point is that, although there are complex areas here and some nuanced language (see particularly point f) the brevity and clarity of these five responses stands in marked contrast not only to the reams of material that have been produced in the LLF process, but also to the idea that difficulties can be solved by further committees, conversations, ‘workstreams’ and heavy process. Might we perhaps have something to learn from this?
Edward’s analysis here is very helpful, and properly locates the Responsum and notices the core aspects of it—and highlights that Pope Francis is not actually changing the position at all from 2021. I have asked in Synod whether the House of Bishops has engaged with the previous Responsum (which it hadn’t), and it would be worth asking again about engagement with this one. This is a parallel question to whether the House has engaged in the current context with its own previous statements, which once more correlate with what Pope Francis is saying here.
House of Bishops Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships(2005)
19. Because of the ambiguity about the place of sexual activity within civil partnerships of both sorts, and the church’s teaching that marriage between a man and a woman is the proper context for sexual intercourse, we do not believe that it is possible for the church unconditionally to accept civil partnerships as unequivocally reflecting the teaching of the church.
20. One consequence of the ambiguity contained within the civil partnerships legislation is that people in a variety of relationships will be eligible to register as civil partners, some living consistently with the teaching of the Church, others not. In these circumstances, the House continues to believe that it would not be right to produce an authorised public liturgy in connection with the registering of civil partnerships. In addition, the House of Bishops affirms that clergy of the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnership.
21. It will be important, however, to bear in mind that registered partnerships do allow for a range of different situations – including those where the relationship is simply one of friendship. Hence, clergy need to have regard to the teaching of the church on sexual morality, celibacy, and the positive value of committed friendships in the Christian tradition. Where clergy are approached by people asking for prayer in relation to entering into a civil partnership they should respond pastorally and sensitively in the light of the circumstances of each case.
House of Bishops Pastoral Guidance on Same Sex Marriages (2014)
20. The 2005 pastoral statement said that it would not be right to produce an authorized public liturgy in connection with the registering of civil partnerships and that clergy should not provide services of blessing for those who registered civil partnerships. The House did not wish, however, to interfere with the clergy’s pastoral discretion about when more informal kind of prayer, at the request of the couple, might be appropriate in the light of the circumstances. The College made clear on 27 January that, just as the Church of England’s doctrine of marriage remains the same, so its pastoral and liturgical practice also remains unchanged.
21. The same approach as commended in the 2005 statement should therefore apply to couples who enter same-sex marriage, on the assumption that any prayer will be accompanied by pastoral discussion of the church’s teaching and their reasons for departing from it. Services of blessing should not be provided. Clergy should respond pastorally and sensitively in other ways.
Until and unless the House of Bishops explains why it is changing its position from these fairly recent statements, it is hard to see any of its proposals as having coherence or integrity.
I particularly like the way the Pope starts with the (legal and negative) clarity, and moves on to the positive and charitable; I think this is more helpful than saying “Yes, we’re anxious to be supportive and loving, but…”
Yes, I agree. Simply start by being clear. I would commend that as an approach for all churches.
The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke very clearly adter the February 2017 General Synod. Could not be more clear:
“How we deal with the real and profound disagreement – put so passionately and so clearly by many at the Church of England’s General Synod debate on marriage and same-sex relationships today – is the challenge we face as people who all belong to Christ.
To deal with that disagreement, to find ways forward, we need a radical new Christian inclusion in the Church. This must be founded in scripture, in reason, in tradition, in theology; it must be based on good, healthy, flourishing relationships, and in a proper 21st century understanding of being human and of being sexual.
We need to work together – not just the bishops but the whole Church, not excluding anyone – to move forward with confidence.”
That working together is a mark of how the Church through the ages has worked at its disagreements. Not simply appealing to a magisterium found in a particular expression of Church or in scripture.
And even conservatives were clear that the report presented by the Bishops in 2017 – clear though it was – got it wrong. Pete Broadbent acknowledged it was “a pretty conservative document”, adding: “I do want to apologise to those members of synod who found our report difficult, who didn’t recognise themselves in it, who had expected more from us than we actually delivered, for the tone of the report. On behalf of the House [of Bishops], and without being trite or trivial, I’m sorry.”
So being clear isn’t without complications and has not found approval in the CofE. That is why we are where we now are. We still have no choice but to work together until we find a solution that is at least more acceptable than the status quo.
How do we live in integrity in a church where many clergy and bishops said they believed in the doctrine of the Church and they would uphold and expound it—and it turns out that they didn’t and they don’t?
And why has the post-LLF process appeared to ignore or set aside ‘scripture, reason, tradition and theology’? Where is the theological working shown?
And where has anyone demonstrated that the anthropology of marriage and sex is a ‘thing indifferent’?
And where in the world is any church that has thrived with this kind of disagreement?
“And why has the post-LLF process appeared to ignore or set aside ‘scripture, reason, tradition and theology’? Where is the theological working shown?”
Quite a lot of it shown in the LLF documents. You just don’t happen to agree with it. One prime example is the way LLF looks at 7 different approaches to scripture, recognising that 1 and 7 are both beyond Anglican tradition. Yet it appears that you only find one approach to scripture acceptable.
Most of the world has discovered that sex is not a primary issue. Some at both liberal and conservative extremes have made it a primary issue, but for the vast majority of people it simply is a joyous and healthy fact of life.
And of course a church can’t thrive with this kind of disagreement. That’s why it needs settling. And clearly, as noted above, the status quo will not hold.
No, the work was not done in the LLF material—and LLF was explicit that it was not doing that.
I don’t find only one approach to Scripture acceptable. I just note the vast consensus on what Scripture says, held by the whole range of scholars.
The world actually thinks sex is very important—look what happens when anyone challenges our cultural narrative. But in any case, what does that have to do with Christian ethics?
The ‘status quo’ holds in all the churches that are currently growing in England, so apparently it can.
You are twisting each thing I say.
LLF shoes some of the theological work done. Not least in its discussion of approaches to scripture. I am glad to read that you understand that a variety of approaches to scripture are possible. The point about consensus might be true but is not entirely relevant if scripture is not the only word on the matter. Reason and experience give us another dimension.
The world might think sex is important. That doesn’t mean it’s a primary issue. It isn’t. The primary issues are loving God and loving our neighbours as ourselves.
The status quo will not hold in the CofE and that is clear and has been for a long time. We need to settle it. Then it can grow.
But as you know there is no ‘middle ground’ settlement. Either the C of E continues to believe that marriage is ‘according to our Lord’ between one man and one woman, or it doesn’t.
If it changes, it will die. Every other church that has changed has died.
Or, we can settle that we are settled, and that there is no compelling argument to depart from the teaching of Jesus and the consensus of the Church.
What we cannot do is find ‘a settlement’. None exists.
It is not at all the case that a variety of approaches to scripture (a hard word to define) are possible.
That assertion is not only wrong, it is the reverse of the truth.
As with any writing, there is only one proper approach: a multi-dimensional bringing-to-bear of the best fruits of scholarship and analysis in all relevant areas.
The proposed model presents an either/or alternative. Any either/or excludes relevant dimensions and work against comprehensiveness, are selective and therefore biased. That is why all either/ors are wrong in interpretation.
No they haven’t died. The US Episcopal Church and Scottish EC already even allow homosexual marriages in their churches and are very much still there
Ian
Middle ground would to be to let this issue be personal or local belief.
OR
Issue better teaching on homosexuality, grounded in the whole of scripture and scientific understanding, not just the clobber verses and not just about sex/marriage, and provide better support for singleness (for any orientation)
OR
Repent from false teaching about LGBT people, truly acknowledge and try to go some way to repair the damage this has caused in so many lives. Require that same sex couples be treated the same as opposite sex couples in every CofE church short of allowing them to marry in church.
Ian
The CofE is dying every bit as much as churches that have allowed SSM! As has been abundantly clear in recent weeks, conservative churches (of all stripes) in Oxford are terrified of students finding out their position on LGBT people. It’s a position thats really the opposite of attracting new congregants
Yes. These statements could form the basis of a CofE position? Rather than as you point out all the reams of LLF stuff.
As you might realise, I would prefer the statement about indissolubility to be qualified with: the intention of ….
The CoE had a coherent and scriptural position some years prior to LLF. This fact shows what the real intent behind LLF is: to drag it away from the Bible.
This is a huge moment. Over 50% of global Christians are still Roman Catholics, so if the Pope as head of the RC church approves blessings of gay unions and joins the Anglican and Lutheran and Methodist churches and Quakers and Church of Scotland who do so then that would be the majority of global Christian denominations allowing blessings of homosexual unions in their churches.
The great falling away prophesied by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2?
@ T1
>> the Pope as head of the RC church approves blessings of gay unions<<
Has he approved blessings of same sex unions that are sexually active – or the blessings of individuals in those relationships seeking God's help to live in accordance with His revealed law?
This is the question …
When this question was raised in the Church of England earlier this year it was rightly recognised as sophistry. Why should individuals in those relationships get a special blessing but others not?
It is obvious that Pope Francis wishes to change the Catholic church’s practice and position over gay marriage. I believe that his ‘synod on synodality’ initiative which will be particularly active this month will seek creative ways to do this, while denying that that is what they are doing in order to create the illusion of not changing supposedly inerrant traditional teaching (teaching which in this case is correct).
You were both honest and unfraternal enough to say once at the now defunct Cranmer blog that you were pleased, as a Catholic, to see the Church of England tearing itself apart. But I am going to support the scriptural position wherever there is controversy.
@ Anton
HJ has never expressed pleasure over the Church of England tearing itself apart. Anton.
I remember it clearly. I am willing to change “tearing itself apart” to “doing itself down”.
@ Anton
In truth, HJ has no such recollection. There are certain sections in the Church of England, as there are in the Catholic Church, that manifest the spirit of the antichrist. If the Church of England changes its formal doctrine on same sex acts/relationships, then it will, by default, whither and die as a Christian ecclesiastical community. So too, the Catholic Church – which HJ would say is impossible.
Some priests/bishops in the Catholic Church may, at worse, change Church practice locally and tacitly “bless” same relationships without any acknowledgement that same sex acts are sinful, or a commitment to chastity, whilst also claiming doctrinal integrity. Others will not and may offer some type of private “blessing” for those committed to living chastely and seeking God’s grace to do so. The real difficulty will be for those in these relationships where chastity is aspired to but stated to be impossible.
And therein lies the real issue with Pope Francis’ response. It’s up to local priests/bishops to decide on a case by case basis, without there being formal liturgical rites or norms – as in Germany, Switzerland and Belgium.
The real difficulty will be for those in these relationships where chastity is aspired to but stated to be impossible.
If they wish to be chaste but are in a relationship in which they find themselves too tempted to be chaste then the solution is to end the relationship.
@ Anton
Yes, that’s the traditional Catholic response to such relationships – including those between a man and woman who have “remarried” after a first sacramental marriage has failed. It’s a doctrine of the Catholic Church, formalised at Vatican I, that God will always give the necessary graces to those seeking freedom from sinful lifestyles if they cooperate with this grace and avoid what are called “near occasions of sin”.
It is this that Pope Francis is attempting to shift Church pastoral praxis on and which is causing some reaction in the Catholic blogosphere amongst ‘Traditionalists”.
It’s what HJ has always striven to do – but he’s never been in situations faced by those with same sex attraction or in a second “marriage”. In that sense, his sinning has been less complicated, but no less serious. It’s easier to hold these standards up for others. What Pope Francis is calling for is “discernment” and for priests to “accompanying” sinners rather than simply giving them standard answers from a dogmatic ‘textbook’.
Is this the proper approach? HJ doesn’t know but can see hazards in it.
“Gay marriage” and “Same-sex marriage” are both, a “contradiction in terms.” After all, Jesus told us that marriage is between one man and one woman. As Christians, we believe what Jesus Christ tells (which is what the word CHRISTian means).
Why should they get a special blessing?
Maybe they have a particular “plea to God for help, a supplication to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us live better”
He has explored the possibility of blessings of same sex unions, as long as clearly distinct from marriage, which is further than the RC church has ever gone before on this issue. As a top down, very hierarchical church it takes its lead from the Pope and Vatican
Is it the question?
An endorsement of covenanted friendships – blessing same-sex unions that are not sexually active – would be a very significant move.
You appear to have once again failed to read, digest or understand the article, and instead impose upon it your own wishful thinking.
1) The Pope hasn’t approved “blessings of gay unions” c.f. Edward’s analysis point e – the potential blessings could only be done if it doesn’t contract the clear teaching of the church regarding what marriage (also the problem with the anglican proposals)
2) Even if he wished to, he couldn’t
3) at one point the majority of the church was arian. They were wrong still.
Indeed.
As noted in the article, in 2021, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) stated clearly that the Church does not power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex.”
The DDF stated that it is “not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex.”
The question then is: what is actually being “blessed” and to what purpose?
Why do liberals keep misreporting things and claiming their ‘seizmic’ or ‘a huge moment’? It seems like a tactic to create a sense of momentum, to persuade others by a sense of tidal movement, to influence those of weaker minds who wish to comply to the norms of the day.
The Pope hasn’t called for same sex union blessings in the sense most people understand that. His successor will most likely be conservative and clarify things anyway. It is yet another statement from the Pope that sounds liberal, but doesn’t change anything. He’s been doing this for years! Not even a small step therefore, just good headlines for liberals.
Re the majority thing, even if a Pope did issue such an edict etc, most Catholics wouldn’t agree, and he’d likely be thrown out, or ignored. But if majority views matter so much, why have you been lobbying all this time? Clearly you don’t think it matters all that much to be in a minority?
PS, with respect, the Church of England hasn’t agreed diddly squat yet.
In response to Pope Francis’ reply to their original ‘doubts’, the five cardinals have now asked:
Is it possible that in some circumstances a pastor could bless unions between homosexual persons, thus suggesting that homosexual behaviour as such would not be contrary to God’s law and the person’s journey toward God?
Linked to this dubium is the need to raise another: does the teaching upheld by the universal ordinary magisterium, that every sexual act outside of marriage, and in particular homosexual acts, constitutes an objectively grave sin against God’s law, regardless of the circumstances in which it takes place and the intention with which it is carried out, continue to be valid?
Whilst Pope Francis has not responded to these questions, his answer is implicit in his formal reply in other sections. He draws a distinction between objective sin and subjective culpability, calling for individual pastoral responses from priests in both the sacrament of confession and in responding to requests for “blessings”. It’s not clear what the nature of the “blessing” might be, or whether its the actual union that is to be “blessed” or the individuals in that union.
This issue is likely to run for some time!
Jack You say that, concerning the nature of blessing, there is a lack of clarity from the papal pronouncements as to whether the’ blessing’ is applicable corporately or individually. Surely the latter concept (i.e. ‘individual blessing) is a non sequitur? If, among other things, ‘blessing’ means “in accord with the will of God”, how is it possible to bless a ‘union’ which is individually based?
@ Colin McC
Fair point, Colin.
Blessings in Catholicism come under the category of “sacramentals”, i.e., a special prayer or action which, through the prayers of the Church, prepares a person to receive grace and to better cooperate with it. By celebrating a blessing, the faithful can also sanctify various situations and events in their lives. So, it would seem probable it is the union/friendship that is to be blessed.
But to what end?
Pope Francis wrote, “When you ask for a blessing, you are expressing a request for help from God, a prayer to be able to live better, a trust in a father who can help us live better,” adding that clergy must show “pastoral prudence and must adequately discern if there are forms of blessing, requested by one or various people, which do not convey a wrong concept of marriage.” But beyond the qualification about not confusing it with marriage, he was silent on any more detail.
That’s an interesting description Jack of Pope Francis’ take on ‘blessing’.However, as I see it, expressions such as ‘help from God’ ; even ‘a trust in a father’ fall short of what I believe to be the core – *conforming to the will of God* ( certainly in the case of marriage)!
And its on this point that a large section of the C of E is falling short in its desire to promote prayers of ‘thanksgiving and dedication for God’s blessing on same-sex couples’. As others have pointed out, such sentiments are prevaricating; ostensibly attempting to provide an alternative? (or as others might see it a runners up prize?) , but in reality manufacturing a direct equation between this particular ‘blessing’ concept with the nature of blessing as depicted in the traditional understanding(s)of marriage.
Well hardly surprising given homosexual marriage in England is legal the established church in England provides blessings of those couples who have received that marriage. However there is still a distinction between the blessings Synod proposed and the Pope has suggested and full marriage for homosexuals, as came up in Coronation Street last night.
The C of E, unlike the RCs, also full marries divorced couples from their church who remarry. Homosexuals are not being yet offered the equivalent full marriage in a C of E church
@ Colin
HJ agrees with your central point about “conforming to the will of God” and it is implicit in the Catholic understanding of a “blessing”, i.e., to prepare a person to receive grace and to better cooperate with it.
Tbh, HJ has mixed views about Pope Francis’ statement and lack of clarity.
One commentator who rarely criticises Francis, writes:
Confused?
Happy Jack is watching and waiting!
Objective v subjective?
So now if I don’t think it is sin it isn’t. And I am no longer culpable…. if I don’t think I am. (To whom?)
A muddle Magisterium, methinks, genuflecting and submitting to subjectivism and localism. A postmodernist Pope.
@ Geoff
This has been the Church’s doctrinal position on sin for centuries.
There are three ‘ingredients’, so to speak, in evaluating a moral action (the object, the intention, and the circumstances), and there are three ingredients in a grave sin: (1) “grave matter,” (2) “full knowledge,” and (3) “deliberate consent.” The Church is clear that all “three conditions must together be met”.
In the words of John Paul II, “Mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered. “
(Reconciliatio et Paenitentia) So one can commit a grave sin, objectively speaking, without moral culpability.
In Catholic moral theology, imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even be nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors. It’s one reason we shouldn’t condemn others for their actions: we don’t know what factors might be at play. But we also shouldn’t prejudge in the opposite direction, as if those who are same sex attracted, for example, no longer have free will or agency, or the ability to sin. Hence “discernment” and “accompaniment” by a spiritual advisor.
HJ,
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Some crimes are of strict liability, no mens rea ( criminal intent) required. And in others it is implied.
Are you really saying that those seeking ssm/b don’t know what they are seeking snd are voluntary partakers?
And I think that those pressing for ssm/b change would be agast at the very idea that they would be considered to come within the range of “moral mitigating” factors that you have set out as part of a “discernment” process, totally subjective as it is, and seemingly devoid of any accountability.
Whereas local magistrates courts in England and Wales, uphold and apply the national law.
All sin requires repentance.
It is interesting that there seems to be a heirarchy of sin.
There seems to be a paid-up subscription to Luther’s Bondage of the will in matters of sexual sin where it becomes a free will vacuum. Again there’d be no subjective culpability, and accountability.
Free will choice seems to be central to the whole question of ssm/b.
It is not matter of condemnation. We are all sinners.
The present Pope represents a fall into postmodernism that Benedict strenuously opposed, and warned against, postmodernism that you have also been robustly opposed to, until now, due to your overiding faith in Papal incumbents, or so it seems.
.
@ Geoff
>>Ignorance of the law is no excuse.<<
Well, we hopefully we can agree that God's mercy transcends His justice.
For example, do you believe pagans who have not received the Gospel and are ignorant of divine law, are damned? Would you say a mentally ill person who commits suicide, is damned? How about a same sex attracted person who wants to turn to Christ after years of a "gay" lifestyle and struggles with chastity?
HJ agrees that all sin requires repentance.
Jack, the latest wanderings of the Pope can’t be that pleasing to you – and maybe testing your ultramontanism to breaking point?
The 28 September edition of ‘First Things’ has an article by a Father Graebe who excoriates Francis for his singular attempt to change Catholic doctrine on the death penalty, upending 2000 years of unbroken church tradition. As you know, the Catholic Church has always affirmed that the death penalty is a legitimate recourse of the State, but Francis, rewriting the Catholic Catechism, has proposed a feeble and historically fallacious argument. Now Francis is attempting the same conjuring trick, trying to change the Catholic teaching on sex, while denying that any change has occurred.
Time to admit that Francis is teaching false doctrine, Jack.
So, what exactly has Le Pap said?
He likes to be unclear. Work him out by what he does. You’ll kjnow more about that when the ‘synod on synodality’ manifests itself.
Here it is from First Things, 28 September, ‘Cleaning up thre Pope’s mess’ by Brian Graebe.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/09/cleaning-up-the-popes-mess
Thank you. That’s insightful for me as an Anglican…