Joshua Penduck writes: ‘Pope says Roman Catholic priests can bless same-sex couples’ declared the BBC News website. It was not alone in this. Anglo-American newspapers, news outlets, and websites emblazoned across their banners this seemingly huge shift in the ethics and polity of the Roman Catholic Church. Liberal Roman Catholics such as James Martin SJ rejoiced; conservative Catholics were outraged. It was not long before there were voices in the Church of England who were likening the move to PLF. The Bishop of Southwark’s suggested on X that this could be seen as an Acts-like work of the Holy Spirit (I’m guessing in a reference to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15). Some Anglicans, both conservative and liberal, suggested that the timing of this document was deliberate. After all, this has happened not long after the Church of England’s General Synod had narrowly voted through their own set of prayers for same-sex couples.
When I read the headlines, I was very surprised, considering that I have been following quite closely the Roman Catholic Church over the last few years. Were the Pope declaring in favour of same-sex blessings in a PLF mould this would be a complete U-turn by the Vatican. As such, I decided to do something unthinkable and read the said document, Fiducia Supplicans: On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings. And it is true, the Pope is saying that Roman Catholic priests can bless same-sex couples. But only in the sense that a priest can bless a boxer before a big fight.
Let me explain as briefly as possible.
First, when Fiducia Supplicans says that a priest can bless a same-sex couple, or a ‘couple in an irregular situation’ as the document itself would describe it, this is nothing new. Honestly. Nothing really has changed. A priest has always been able to do this. The document calls this ‘spontaneous’ blessings. Let me give you an example.
In the first Rocky movie, before his big fight, the protagonist calls upon the priest before his big fight. He asks for the priest to ‘throw down a blessing’ as he and his girlfriend have a baby on the way and he doesn’t want ‘to get messed up too bad’. Notice that he has a pregnant girlfriend—not wife—and he’s about to get into a fight. In other words, Rocky is in a situation which the Roman Catholic Church would consider fornication and is about to enter into a situation of unjustified violence. The priest doesn’t ask for any sign of repentance for his fornication, nor try to persuade him to not to fight. He gives the blessing in a spontaneous and informal manner and goes back to bed. This is the kind of thing that Fiducia Supplicans is arguing in response to the blessings of couples in ‘irregular situations’:
Such a blessing may instead find its place in other contexts, such as a visit to a shrine, a meeting with a priest, a prayer recited in a group, or during a pilgrimage (3.40).
In other words, if a same-sex couple came up to a priest on a pilgrimage to a shrine and said, ‘Can we have a blessing, Father?’, the priest can do what he has always done. Like with the example of Rocky and Father Carmine,
when people ask for a blessing, an exhaustive moral analysis should not be placed as a precondition for conferring it. For those seeking a blessing should not be required to have prior moral perfection (3.25).
Thus the situation remains the same as it ever was.
Why then is a statement needed of such a kind? Is it a crafty way for a secret radically liberal Pope to smuggle in blessings for same-sex couples? Is it an example of Catholic fudge where the Pope tries to placate the liberals whilst keeping the conservatives on board? Is it the Pope looking at the wonders of the Church of England’s Prayers of Love and Faith and thinking, ‘My, my, this is a beacon of the future’? Well, to put it bluntly, no. Tragically, the Church of England simply isn’t that important anymore. Vatican documents are exhaustively written over a long period of time. The timing is arguably just a coincidence; if it is more than a coincidence, it is to indicate the opposite of what the media is claiming. For the Vatican the CofE is small fry. The bigger fish is Germany.
Whilst this has passed most of the CofE by, Pope Francis has initiated a massive project called synodality. In essence, this is a long-term project which is an attempt by the Pope to call together the whole Roman Church to discernment of the future. His focus throughout has been to remake the Roman Catholic Church into an evangelistic body. However, different national branches of the church have interpreted this in different ways. Particular attention goes to the German Roman Catholic Church (plus a few other Northern European Catholic churches). The bishops here have in many ways gone AWOL. They have started introducing new innovations which are not recognised by the wider church. Though the Vatican and even the Pope have given the Germans frequent warnings, these have not been heeded.
Indeed, in March this year, the German bishops voted to approve blessings for same-sex couples in a process which looks remarkably like PLF. There are priests on the ground who are defying their own archbishop by blessing gay marriages. This has come up frequently in the synodal process and the German insistence has irritated even normally irenic voices such as Bishop Robert Barron. Indeed, the German church is increasingly at risk of schism from the wider church; excommunications are potentially afoot. Francis has avoided such an explosive result for good reason: not only is schism bad, and excommunication grim, but also because church taxes in Germany help lavishly fund much of the Vatican’s own finances.
We therefore must read Fiducia Supplicans as a response to this. And I really do mean read the document (which no one seems to be doing). And if this is not a put-down of the German bishops, I don’t know what is. Let’s look at some of these quotes:
Rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage—which is the “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children”—and what contradicts it are inadmissible. This conviction is grounded in the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage; it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning. The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm. (1.4)
The Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex. (1.5)
It should be emphasized that in the Rite of the Sacrament of Marriage, this concerns not just any blessing but a gesture reserved to the ordained minister. In this case, the blessing given by the ordained minister is tied directly to the specific union of a man and a woman, who establish an exclusive and indissoluble covenant by their consent. This fact allows us to highlight the risk of confusing a blessing given to any other union with the Rite that is proper to the Sacrament of Marriage. (1.6)
It is essential to grasp the Holy Father’s concern that these non-ritualized blessings never cease being simple gestures that provide an effective means of increasing trust in God on the part of the people who ask for them, careful that they should not become a liturgical or semi-liturgical act, similar to a sacrament. (3.36)
One should neither provide for nor promote a ritual for the blessings of couples in an irregular situation. (3.38)
In any case, precisely to avoid any form of confusion or scandal, when the prayer of blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation, even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding. The same applies when the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple. (3.39)
What then is the kind of blessing envisaged by the Pope?
The ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance—but also God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely (3.38, italics mine).
In other words, the blessing is not a bare affirmation but rather a prayer for the persons’ humanity and the fulfilling of God’s will. Remember, the document declares that sexual relationships can only happen in the context of a male-female marriage. Therefore, the blessing is also a subtle prayer for sexual holiness as the Church has always understood this. The longest part of the document is a biblical and theological exploration of the difference between the spontaneous and informal prayers (like that given to Rocky) and liturgical rites. This is the main innovation: it gives theological grounding to indicate a distinction between various types of blessings. The Rocky-blessings cannot be given in a church service, but only in informal settings ‘such as a visit to a shrine, a meeting with a priest, a prayer recited in a group, or during a pilgrimage’ (3.40).
If this is a liberal meal, it is a thin and cold gruel indeed. The kind of blessings envisaged by the German bishops are ruled out: they cause confusion and scandal (2.30). Instead, any blessing of a same-sex couple (or a cohabiting couple, or a remarried couple) is in the same category as Rocky calling out to Father Carmine. Francis is keen not to commit everything under canon law; he’s keen that someone like Father Carmine should not be required to request Rocky’s repentance for his irregular situation before giving the blessing. What’s more, the church’s teachings remain the same.
Is this the thin end of the wedge? Perhaps, but it’s unlikely to be. The document says, ‘no further responses should be expected about possible ways to regulate details or practicalities regarding blessings of this type’ (3.31). In other words, this remains an informal matter and the church will not be changing its doctrine or its liturgy to fit in.
Francis has often been accused of creating confusion and lacking clarity. Many conservatives have noted the documentation can potentially allow situations in which the priest can potentially bless a couple in adultery. But then again, it was always thus. More importantly, this document:
1. Rules out certain innovations in Germany as being legitimate forms of doctrinal development.
2. Gives permission Father Carmine to get the blessing of Rocky over and done with as quickly as possible and then get back to sleep.
Joshua Penduck is the Rector of Newcastle-under-Lyme, St Giles with St Thomas, Butterton, in the Diocese of Lichfield. Prior to ordination he was a composer and has written music for the LSO, BCMG and Orkest de Ereprijs. He is married to Shelley, who is also an Anglican minister in Stoke-on-Trent.
Additional Note 1: The polarised reactions to this statement match the responses to the response to questions that Pope Francis issues in October 2023, which I explored here. 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.
This statement, whilst similarly giving space for appropriate pastoral response, remained adamant about the impossibility of formally blessing irregular 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. 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.
Ven Dr Edward Dowler, Archdeacon of Hastings, notes the relevance for the situation of the Church of England:
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?
Additional Note 2: On Twitter, Christopher Chessun made this rather extraordinary claim about the Pope’s statement, the Church of England, and the admission of the Gentiles in Acts 15:
Is this the Holy Spirit leading the Churches – see Acts. Though different to the General Synod mandate for PLF other examples in post Reformation history of #UniversalChurch following @churchofengland most notably on Vernacular Bible and Liturgy https://t.co/HEwpVhtrU1
— Bishop of Southwark (@BishopSouthwark) December 18, 2023
Apart from being completely misleading about the nature of the Pope’s statement, and failing to recognise the significant differences with what is happening in the Church of England, this statement also makes numerous false claims about the decision in Acts 15.
- The decision by the Council of Jerusalem was made precisely because they found Scripture explicitly to confirm the inclusion of the Gentiles. In the debates about SSM, we constantly find the testimony of experience contradicts and is set over against the testimony of Scripture—so much so, that the consensus of liberal critical scholarship is clear that Scripture is opposed to any form of same-sex sexual relationship, and that on this Scripture is clearly wrong.
- The gentile mission was thus seen as a fulfilment of the eschatological purposes of God; the purpose of Israel, to be a ‘light to the nations’, was now finally being fulfilled in Jesus. Thus it is (according to Peter in Acts 2) in these ‘last days’ that the Spirit is being poured out ‘on all flesh’, both Jew and Gentile. To seek to draw a parallel with the blessing of same-sex unions is to claim that all of salvation history has been waiting for this moment.
- The decision could then be seen to be in line with the ministry and teaching of Jesus. In the gospel according to Matthew, the most Jewish of our gospels, where Jesus is adamant that he has come to minister only to the ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matt 15.24), he nevertheless makes the startling prediction that ‘many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt 8.11). By contrast, the Church of England explicitly states that the understanding of marriage as ‘between one man and one woman’ is ‘according to the teaching of our Lord’ (Canon B30), so that accepting same-sex relations as ‘marriage’ would be an explicit contradiction of Jesus’ own teaching.
- The decision of the Council of Jerusalem was the decision of a fruitful, growing church, in which the ‘Lord added daily to their number’. By contrast, the doctrine of marriage has been changed only by Western churches that are in terminal decline. All the churches in the UK which are growing are ones that have remained faithful to the consensus view of the church catholic.
- The Council asked not that gentiles became Jews in order to be incorporated into this renewed Israel of God in Jesus—but that they did conform to important ethical standards, including the distinctive approach to sex and marriage. Liberal scholar the late E P Sanders put it like this:
Homosexual activity was a subject on which there was a severe clash between Greco-Roman and Jewish views. Christianity, which accepted many aspects of Greco-Roman culture, in this case accepted the Jewish view so completely that the ways in which most of the people in the Roman Empire regarded homosexuality were obliterated, though now have been recovered by ancient historians…
Diaspora Jews had made sexual immorality and especially homosexual activity a major distinction between themselves and gentiles, and Paul repeated Diaspora Jewish vice lists. (Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters and Thought p 344).
(For a full discussion of the importance of Acts 15 to this debate, see Andrew Goddard’s helpful Grove booklet on the question.)
So this claim is misleading wishful thinking. It raises the question as to why those who are seeking change in the Church of England are prepared to be so cavalier and careless in their claims, ignoring the actual content of such statements, the clear continuing position of the Church of England itself, and the biblical texts? Is this a sign that they really know that the change they seek will never in fact happen?
“Is this the thin end of the wedge? Perhaps, but it’s unlikely to be.”
No, Jonathan, you are wrong. Gavin Ashenden says this means civil war in the Catholic Church.
See the most recent ‘Anglican Unscripted’ on youtube which shows where this is actually going and the false assumptions you have made.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qis5G7eENiQ&t=1s
Who is Jonathan?
Gavin Ashenden is by no means a reliable voice for the Catholic Church.
“Reliable” for what? For articulating Catholic doctrine or commenting on church politics? I suspect he understands both better than you or I – and I had a Catholic upbringing and education and have taught RE in Catholic schools.
Happy Jack likes to put the most positive spin on things, but it is evident that Catholicism is heading for a bust-up. Francis will be gone within a year and then we’ll see the fireworks.
2024 is going to be a big unsettling year in politics, everywhere.
He has been a Roman Catholic for about five minutes and before that was a make beleive bishop of some make beleive church. His understanding is limited to his prejudice. It is the worst kind of journalism.
You don’t like him then?
I don’t know him, and like has nothing to do with it.
The journalism, however, is shoddy and prejudiced.
Unlike the words you publish here, of course.
If you are a regular commenter here, could I please ask you to restrict yourself to five comments a day, in order to create some space for others to contribute to the discussion.
A priest might bless a crowd or an individual without asking about their personal lives, but if two persons come forward and ask to be blessed *together* then that obviously involves a blessing of whatever relationship is betwen them. That is a point that Pope Francis is determinedly not acknowledging. Any conscientious priest should then enquire of the nature of that relationship, and should not bless a sinful relationship. The two persons can be blessed separately, of course, using general terms. But the “don’t ask” wording in Fiducia Supplicans is disingenuous. Mentioning same-sex relationships in the same document makes it clear what couples Francis has in mind.
With the Roman Curia well known to be heavily homosexual and Francis as Pope, I suspect the Catholic church in Germany is pushing at an open door. Notice that Francis has gone as far as he can in this document, which is formally about blessings, while claiming to remain consistent with unchangeable Catholic doctrine. A conservative Pope would simply have excommunicated the most blatant German transgressor and privately warned the rest that they were next, one by one.
Francis is meanwhile calling for the next step after his October Synod on Synodality, which aimed to relocate authority in the Catholic church in future synods of liberals meeting essentially as encounter groups, with conclusions judged by the sensus fidei – supposedly the Holy Spirit but more likely the Spirit of the Age. What will happen if past teaching is contradicted? Francis recently handed the levers of enforcement to ultraliberal Cardinal Victor Fernandez, who now controls the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Thanks Anton. Some really good points here. Regarding your first point, I can see how it can be interpreted as blessing the relationship between them. But this has always been the case. I think what this document is doing is saying that the priest in these spontaneous situations should not be required to make an exhaustive moral enquiry. Once it starts becoming formalised – i.e. planned events – then it contradicts the Pope’s statement.
I’ve never bought the idea that Francis is the radical liberal trying to push for radical change, only stopped by the boundaries of other power groups. He’s not a conservative Pope; but then again, he’s not a liberal Pope either. He’s a moderate who leans liberal in some areas and conservative in others. I mean, the Jesuits in Argentina considered him to be very conservative! (That being said, a ‘conservative Jesuit’ these days is usually just a moderate in other respects… I also think he’s trying to avoid another schism in Germany (he said ‘We don’t need another Protestant Church in Germany’ – the implication being that this is a risk. Likewise, I don’t buy the idea of Victor Fernandez as an ultraliberal. He’s more liberal than Francis, I’ll grant you that. But not an ultraliberal.
The thing is, past teaching cannot be contradicted in the Roman Catholic Church. If that happens, then there is a REAL problem. But I’ve seen no indication from Francis that he’s about to do that. This document confirms this.
I think your conclusion is a bit premature. If Francis lives (remember he’s 87 and not in good health) then the next meeting of the Synodality group will tell us exactly what his agenda is. I’d bet differently from you but let’s wait to see.
If new teaching contradicts old – contrary to the claim of Magisterial inerrancy – then Rome has no way to deal with it. Rome lost the option of a General Council as being superior to the papacy at the First Vatican Council. It would be interesting to see the Catholic church making up its procedures as it went along. Cantarella was the traditional way.
I don’t hold a candle for traditional Catholicism either, but it’s not hard to decide which team to support over specific issues!
Anton
What do you make of this in paragraph 25: blockquote>The Church, moreover, must shy away from resting its pastoral praxis on the fixed nature of certain doctrinal or disciplinary schemes, especially when they lead to “a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying.” This is the key to understanding the papacy of Pope Francis – an emphasis on engaging, evangelising and calling people back to Christ, rather than erecting doctrinal and pastoral barriers.
I covered that exact point in the first paragraph of my post above at 09:57.
Anton
Well, you’ve misrepresented the document. And, with respect, you don’t exactly support Catholic moral theology, its sacramental nature, or its pastoral emphasis.
As I’m limited to five posts, this is the third, let me expand on this.
The following paragraphs set out Pope Francis’ pastoral approach that has been evident throughout his papacy and has been stirring so much controversy:
Certainly, this represents something of a shift from the more circumspect teachings of his predecessors in that access to the sacraments is offered in some situations judged appropriate by local pastors, and now non-liturgical blessings. One can argue about objective and subjective culpability, and people have, but it is part of the Church’s moral teachings, and can only be determined on an individual basis. However, it’s not as huge a shift as some claim.
In 1997, Pope John Paul II said:
So, not the approval or endorsement of homosexual relationships you’re claiming. This development is relatively minor and less controversial in comparison with his teachings on admission to the sacraments of those living in objectively sinful situations. However, both are aimed at leading people to living in ways consistent with the Gospel. Whether they do or not really depends on them.
You’re also wrong about Pope Francis’ ambitions about a Synodal Church – but that’s another story.
As I also said, I don’t hold a candle for traditional Catholicism, but it’s not hard to decide which side to support over the specific issue at hand.
I would be glad to be wrong. But I deny that I have misrepresented the document, and, with equal respect, I believe Gavin Ashenden sees it more acutely than you do. Let time decide between us.
For me, the key thing I am seeing in the Roman Catholic view of ‘blessing’ – at least this ‘spontaneous’ kind – is that it does not imply approval of the life of those receiving the blessing. The people are being blessed, not their life(style) being affirmed. If the prayer is that they know the grace of God in their lives, to conform their lives to his will, that can be a risky prayer. God, in his graciousness might reveal the ways in which one’s life does not conform to his will, but how he also gives the ability to “go and sin no more.”
Spot on! I would not hesitate to pray for anyone, asking God’s blessing on their lives and that they might grow into greater holiness and obedience to his will!
Definitely. An issue separate from this would be: to pray for two people as a pair accepts the premise that they are somehow a pair.
Thank you… You beat me to it. Blessing isn’t an automatic approval of behaviour in a situation … Tad more dangerous than that if properly understood.
Is Fiducia Supplicans clear? It seems to be triggering vastly different responses which appear to rest on one’s prior perceptions about Pope Francis. Why is this?
Paragraph 40 of the DDF declaration states that “there is no intention to legitimize anything, but rather to open one’s life to God, to ask for his help to live better, and also to invoke the Holy Spirit so that the values of the Gospel may be lived with greater faithfulness.”
The document states its intention: to help Catholics “understand the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage.” The Church wants to call them to holiness.
It explains there is a “broader understanding of blessings” than liturgical blessings, which requires “that what is blessed corresponds with God’s designs written in creation and fully revealed by Christ the Lord.” (This is the ‘innovation’ in the declaration – a development of doctrine on blessings).
Paragraph 11 explains that “the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice.” Paragraph 21 notes that “when one asks for a [non-liturgical] blessing, one is expressing a petition for God’s assistance, a plea to live better, and confidence in a Father who can help us live better.” This kind of request, the declaration says, “should, in every way, be valued, accompanied, and received with gratitude.” In other words, says Paragraph 25, “when people ask for a blessing, an exhaustive moral analysis should not be placed as a precondition for conferring it. For, those seeking a blessing should not be required to have prior moral perfection.”
But will those asking for such non-liturgical blessings have this intent to live a better life in mind?
This new, broader understanding of non-liturgical blessings means that priests do not need to complete a comprehensive moral examination “when people spontaneously ask for a blessing, whether on pilgrimages, at shrines, or even on the street.” Paragraph 28 explains: “Such blessings are meant for everyone; no one is to be excluded from them.”
The priest can simply pray for God’s grace and let Him do the rest.
And that, explains Paragraph 27, is the purpose of a non-liturgical blessing. It “disposes man’s heart to be changed by God.” Such a blessing, “descends from God upon those who — recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help — do not claim a legitimation of their own status” but rather believe “that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel.” In giving the blessing, Paragraph 40 makes clear that the blessing’s purpose is “to invoke the Holy Spirt so that the values of the Gospel may be lived with greater faithfulness.”
This is perhaps the documents central weakness and why there is different readings of it. A non-liturgical blessing’s purpose is to call the individuals in those relationships to live out the Gospel more faithfully and abandon sinful choices. It fails to call individuals in same-sex relationships or irregular marriages to live chaste lives, but instead simply says that blessings open one to grace that allow such change to be possible. Then, one could argue, same sex attracted people and the remarried already know Church teaching as its clearly articulated in the Catechism, so is there a need to reiterate this.
I think clarity has always been a problem for Francis; but then again, I think he’s trying to navigate difficult waters. He lacks the precision of his predecessor, but he’s never keen on the scholasticism. This has always caused problems throughout his incumbency. I think one thing that needs to be taken into consideration is that it is a Pastoral document; i.e. this is written primarily for priests. Therefore, the need to call for sexual holiness is not its primary aim – after all, priests are supposed to be celibate!
I think you’re right about the primary innovation. It is something of a development in its right sense. I do have worries about the document, especially how it could be abused (see James Martin SJ today…), but in the main its not the radical change thought by either liberals or conservatives.
@ Joshua
I agree. This article in the Catholic Herald hits the nail on the head:
No, the Church has not changed her doctrine on the liceity or blessing of same-sex unions. It describes the Church having being lurched into another “PR disaster” by misreporting, noise and confusion, saying this is: “Par for the course during this pontificate. It could have been avoided.”
https://catholicherald.co.uk/no-the-church-has-not-changed-her-doctrine-on-the-liceity-or-blessing-of-same-sex-unions/
As for Fr James Martin’s latest non spontaneous, stunt (a cupid stunt, one might say). This appears premeditated and orchestrated, given its promotion in the New York Times. From the photos, the couple, who are both seasoned LBTQ+ campaigners, didn’t seem to present as “recognis(ing) themselves to be destitute and in need of His help,” as the Vatican document states.
There’s the sin of “scandal” Fr Martin and others seems to overlook. The Catholic Catechism says this about it:
Perhaps another reason why Pope Francis needs to consider his style of leadership and reflect on the impact his confusing statements and formal documents have on us Catholic sheep!
There are often massive differences between the understanding of the church (who “authorise” the blessing) , the one doing the blessing and the one(s) being blessed. In popular understanding there is a feeling it is a “good luck” kind of thing. I have come to see it as a prayer for the recipient to stand in the right place to receive the abundance of Ephesians 3, so they are equipped to live a life in abundance. So if people are refusing to stand in the right place, for whatever reason, then the blessing is unlikely to be fulfilled.
yes indeed. Popular perception is a long way from theological understanding, and this perhaps explains the different interpretations.
I’m still looking for a systematic theology of blessing. This reminded me of an item on Fr Z’s website where a couple [at least one divorced] said (from memory) “Of course the Catholic church blesses second marriages! We went to Rome for our honeymoon and passed a priest in the street, we stopped him and asked him to bless our marriage and he was happy to do so, no questions asked.” Cue a lengthy explanation of something which I feel ought to be quite simple.
No one has changed church teaching. Any confusion on the part of the public is completely understandable, the point is, is it inevitable… or deliberate?
I think the whole thing is very misleading, hence the interpretation of it in the media.
I think the reality is that the typical Catholic or typical CoE attendee will understand these ‘blessings’ to mean asking God to bless such sexual relationships. If not, why bother to do it in the first place?
Im getting the distinct impression from clergy on here that theyre happy to turn a blind eye to such shenanigans because they’re not ‘officially’ blessing the relationship. Nonsense of course.
God knows what the leaders of these churches are trying to do. But of course they cant be honest about it to Him or anyone else.
And as the article says, perhaps the main motivation, at least for the Catholic church, is to keep the palaces and money going. Says it all really. Some church lol.
Hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches, not what some should-be-fired bishops are saying.
I think the intention here really could be to cut off a bad reaction. If a pair of men come to a priest for a blessing, the priest shouldn’t have to investigate whether they are a couple of homosexuals (and indeed the mental shelf-space that this would require empowers the homosexual lobby). He can simply bless them, just as he would have done throughout the last two thousand years.
Imagine if two men came up to you asking for prayer would you really want to investigate their relationship before doing so? We shouldn’t read our own situation of deliberately and publicly blessing sin (or desiring to being seen as doing so) to what this order seems to be about.
The decision seems to me to be primarily anti-reaction – although with some anti-progressive points – and thus a conservative one.
I would like to think, but perhaps Im naive, if 2 men together approached a member of the clergy to ask for a blessing, he would ask what is it you want blessed exactly?
Or are we now in what used to be the army motto, dont ask, dont tell?
This is getting more like a Monty Python sketch day by day.
Would you ask that if it was one man? If so, then sure ask that question if you like.
But if not, then you are giving far too much weight to 1% of the population. The vast majority of cases of a man and another man interacting are not homosexual in nature. If an unmarried man is going on a pilgrimage it is very likely that he’s going to be closely interacting with another man over the journey and in the waiting at the shrine. You become at this point their servant and their propagandist. Imagine if every time a homosexual saw two men together he asked “Have you accepted Jesus as your Lord and Saviour?” That would be a win for us, and so is an obsession with homosexuality a win for them.
The problem with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is simply having a policy was a win for them.
My own reading of the document is that it is a very sly and crafty way of moving things along toward the German bishops’ view. One could write a book about the craftiness of clerics to call a spade a fork, and this was one of the main issues Jesus pointed out about the scribes and Pharisees. Mark 7.9-13, where Jesus challenges the Pharisees’ way of avoiding the fifth commandment to honour one’s parents by claiming what they had was Corban, given by God, seems to me to have some parallels to what is going on with this ‘pastoral’ versus ‘liturgical’ blessing distinction. Moreover, this new notion of blessing without asking questions begs for some discussion of other scenarios. Obviously, a homosexual couple asking for a blessing is not asking for what this document states but for a blessing on their relationship (this is the slight of hand in this argument). One does not take pictures at the altar with one’s sin partner and smiley faces after confession (‘Bless me, Father, for I have sinned.’) So, what about other specificity when sinners are asking for a blessing related to their sins? ‘Father, we’re about to bomb Dresden, will you bless us?’ What was it, 30,000 civilians killed? ‘Father, my daughter and I love each other and are in an incestuous relationship. We know it is a sin. Will you bless us?’
The document has a rather quick Bible study on blessings–the upward, downward, and horizon (my word) blessings. I think it would have been helpful to explore this further for the purpose of clarity if it explored the antithesis of blessing as well. You cannot present a clear teaching on Mt. Gerizim (blessings) without Mt. Ebal (curses). The things opposed to God’s Law are cursed, not blessed.
I agree entirely. Good analysis.
@ Rollin
>>My own reading of the document is that it is a very sly and crafty way of moving things along toward the German bishops’ view.<<
I'd say it's the exact opposite, in fact. A way of bringing the Belgium and German Churches in line. The clear prohibition on public, ritualised services, with an emphasis on spontaneous, informal, intercessory blessings, without prearranged norms, is a signal to these local Churches.
Yes, I see that in the document. Those seeking change know that there is a politics of change and an evolutionary process. They advance some things and put the breaks on other things. A broadened definition of ‘blessing’ applied to a narrow group allows this. The document is saying that ‘pastoral blessing’ does not enquire into the particular situation, is not investigative, and then it applies this to a group that declares themselves with no need for moral investigation as we know who they are. And we know why they want a blessing. They do not come as individuals asking God to guide them generally in life, etc., but as a couple asking for a blessing in the very relationship the Church has always regarded as sin. It is as though there is the mount of specific (liturgical) blessing, a construction of the mount of broad (pastoral) blessing, and a rejection of the mount of curses (Mt. Ebal). This trajectory is not the endpoint but is laid out to get to that endpoint some day, when all the other pieces can be moved forward.
Be that as it may, it will be interesting to hear the honest take of the Germans on this latest move. They have to be smart enough to see what a tremendous step this is to advance their cause, even if they do not get everything all at once.
I’m also wondering how this document is supposed to guide priests. It seems to me to encourage pastoral ignorance rather than guidance and care. Will priests happily throw up a blessing for a couple whose sin they do not know (as indicated) but not for a couple whose sin is known? Again, the pastoral blessing is defined as non-specific, and yet the couple is specific, and the blessing they seek has to do with their specific, sinful union.
A man once told me he met a lovely lady and was divorcing his wife to marry her. He wanted my prayers and blessing. If I were to follow this ‘pastoral’ guidance, I might have said, ‘Please do not tell me anything so that I can offer a general blessing for you.’ This is not pastoral care.
@ Rollin
Even sinners, known or otherwise, can and do receive prayers of intercession asking for God to lead them to Him. If the person receiving the blessing, or the priest giving it, acts in bad faith then how do you think God will receive this?
Throughout Fiducia Supplicans several beneficial functions for simple, non liturgical blessing are givens:
– Expressing a petition for God’s assistance, a plea to live better, and confidence in a Father who can help us live better (#21);
– Entrust oneself to the Lord and his mercy, to invoke his help, and to be guided to a greater understanding of his plan of love and truth (#30);
– Call on grace that can orient everything according to the mysterious and unpredictable designs of God (#32);
– Increase one’s trust in God (#33);
– Express and nurture openness to the transcendence, mercy, and closeness to God in a thousand concrete circumstances of life (#33);
– Ask for peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance—but also God’s light and strength to be able to fulfil his will completely (#37);
– Open one’s life to God, to ask for his help to live better, and also to invoke the Holy Spirit so that the values of the Gospel may be lived with greater faithfulness (#40);
– Renew the proclamation of the kerygma, an invitation to draw ever closer to the love of Christ (#44).
If the person receiving the blessing, or the priest giving it, acts in bad faith, then how do you think God will receive this prayer? On the other hand, perhaps the person, or persons, is moving towards correcting their life and wants God’s help.
Among the purposes of this blessing there is no legitimation of homosexual acts or an equivalence between same-sex relationships and marriage. Such legitimation would go against the manifest mind and will expressed in the document (#31).
These blessings are to be imparted to people who “recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help, do not claim a legitimation of their own status” (#31), who “do not claim to be righteous but who acknowledge themselves humbly as sinners, like everyone else” (#32).
“One who asks for a blessing show himself to be in need of God’s saving presence in his life. To seek a blessing in the Church is to acknowledge that the life of the Church springs from God’s mercy and helps us to move forward, to live better, and to respond to the Lord’s will” (#20).
In this setting and with this purpose, these blessings can be a “seed of the Holy Spirit that must be nurtured, not hindered” (#33).
As for blessing them as “individuals” or as a “couple”, Fiducia Supplicans studiously avoids this dichotomy. It does not discuss who or what gets blessed, but what blessings are and for what purpose. It employs the term “couple” to define the target of the blessing. However, the term “couple” could refer to the people who are part of the couple or to the relationship itself.
The 2021 Responsum, said: “The answer to the proposed dubium does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations, who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching (…) [God] does not and cannot bless sin: he blesses sinful man.” It seems to me, the document should be understood in the light of this.
The Holy See’s Vatican News site explained that the document, which pertains not only to same-sex couples but also to any couple in a union not recognised by the Church, enables “the couple [to be] blessed but not the union.” Such a union cannot be blessed, because it entails sexual relations outside of sacramental marriage. “What is blessed is the legitimate relationship between the two people,” – i.e., those aspects of their relationship that pertain to friendship. Pope Francis, although introducing a development in the pastoral meaning of blessings, has not changed Catholic teachings on human sexuality, marriage, sin, or grace.
Would you withhold a blessing on a congregation at the end of one of your services if there were same sex couples present? At the end of every Catholic Mass the faithful receive a blessing, including couples in same-sex unions and in irregular unions.
I appreciate the time given for the reply. I do believe, however, that all the good examples of blessing listed are precisely the Trojan horse in which acceptance of ‘irregular’ (the word itself is sneaky) relationships are being snuck into the Church. We have all seen this sort of game before and how it ends up.
The argument for a general, pastoral blessing is set up, and then a specific group identified by the sin it commits suddenly appears to receive it as though sinning that grace may abound works after all and despite the fact that persons committing this sin are an abomination to God.
Many Biblical discussions could be had about this. For example, Paul lists the blessings of God to Israel in Romans 3.2 and 9.4-5. Yet he wishes that he himself might be accursed (9.3–the word is ‘anathema’ in the Greek where the ESV has ‘cut off’) in their place. (This is the opposite of ‘blessing’.) The reason is that ‘circumcision is indeed of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision’ (2.25). Seeking some general blessing is like being circumcised–applied to all Jewish males–but it is of no value to those who break the law, which practicing homosexuals are, of course, doing.
You ask a good question at the end, one that divides Christians. I would apply the teaching of 1 Corinthians 5 to those continuing in open sin for both pastoral and ecclesial reasons. By refusing fellowship to the openly sinful person in the Corinthian church, the church opened up the possibility that one turned over to Satan might realise his sin and repent. By playing around with general blessings, the church would only have misled the sinner into believing that God was not going to exclude him from His Kingdom (6.9-11). The Church, too, needed to cleanse out the ‘yeast’ of sin in its midst to celebrate Christ our Passover. This is what pastoral care involves, not general blessings for people living in open sinfulness.
Some discussion of Catholic ecclesiology might be relevant for further discussion, but this is not an area to which I can contribute.
A same-sex couple who come to a Mass are at grave personal risk in view of the warnings in 1 Corinthians 11. If the priest sees them and is aware of their situation, what should he do?
@ Rollin
Aren’t we all persistent sinners? Good pastors experience people who are persistently stuck in the same sin, and confess it, over and over. That reality may be “discouraging”, but we don’t give up on God or, as a Catholic, the sacramental system of Confession and the Eucharist. Pastors and laity, offer encouragement to sinners.
Under the terms of FS, if a priest was aware a same sex couple were seeking legitimation of homosexual acts, or an equivalence between same-sex relationships and marriage, then such a blessing would be contrary to its intent.
As for people in “irregular unions”, why’s the term “sneaky”? The unions of the divorced and remarried, or those married outside the Catholic Church, maybe problematic – but are they always sinful? The Church continues to confirm sex outside of marriage is sinful, but the commitments themselves may be judged as moral positives. And they may be chaste, or people may be struggling to achieve chastity. Should they separate? And what harm might result to their children?
The Church offers all sorts of things to people with flawed intentions. The qualities of generosity and hope do not see people as lost causes, or needing to be excluded from entering a church. We put trust in the supernatural qualities of blessings, even a non-liturgical one. Isn’t the better course of action is to throw away the “accounting book”, remove the “Sherlock Holmes hat”, and begin to make true friends with people who approach us for spiritual care.
Jack, if a Catholic asked you to summarise for him the question of the blessings in the Anglican Prayers of Love and Faith, would you write any differently about them as you are doing about Francis’s?
@ Anton
Concerning 1 Corinthians 11.
Those who worship at a Catholic Mass who are conscious of grave, unrepented sin, should not go forward to receive the Eucharist. They may go forward to receive a blessing from the priest. It’s no longer a small house gathering, preceded by a general, communal meal; nor are women required to cover their heads.
Do you think a priest should exclude certain people before the blessing at the end of Mass? Or should the Church close its doors to groups of people who are sinners?
Pertaining to Anglican Prayers of Love and Faith.
The Church of England ‘Prayers of Love and Faith’ are a public, semi-ritualised set of defined prayers performed during a Sunday service. These are planned events. The couple dress-up, invite friends and family, come forward for their relationship to be prayed over by a minister. These services have a celebratory tone – and the relationship, in all its dimensions, is affirmed before said family, friends, and the congregation. In many cases they will be closely associated with civil “marriages”. Photo’s, meals and drinks will probably follow. Yes?
PLF are not spontaneous, informal blessings of individuals within a ‘couple’ “recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of His help, (where they) do not claim a legitimation of their own status” (#31). Yes?
If FS is implemented according to its text and intent, there’s the difference.
Will FS be consistently implemented this way? That’s the question.
Fiducia Supplicans certainly has plausible deniability and you, Jack, have fallen for it.
@ Anton
Perhaps … but it’s way more than “plausible deniability”.
The document unequivocally reiterates Church doctrine by citing Pope Francis’ Respuestas: Marriage is an “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children” (#4). The text goes on to say that this definition is grounded on perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage (#4). In the Presentation preceding the declaration, it is stated that blessings for same-sex couples can only be done “without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage.” Everything that contradicts this meaning is deemed “inadmissible” (#4). Those unions “cannot be compared in any way to a marriage” (#30). Those “who invoke God’s blessing through the Church are invited to strengthen their dispositions through faith, for which all things are possible and to trust in the love that urges the observance of God’s commandments.” (#30).
The document makes a distinction between blessings done as part of a liturgical rite and simple blessings. It is the latter that are subject to the doctrinal development of a “more pastoral approach to blessings” (#21). “This is a blessing that, although not included in any liturgical rite, unites intercessory prayer with the invocation of God’s help by those who humbly turn to him” (#33). Adding later, “Therefore, even when a person’s relationship with God is clouded by sin, he can always ask for a blessing, stretching out his hand to God, as Peter did in the storm when he cried out to Jesus” (#43).
Cardinal Fernandez quotes St. Thérèse when she says we must trust “in the infinite mercy of a God who loves us unconditionally” (#22). He also draws from the Church’s liturgy, by citing a Collect from the Roman Missal: “Almighty ever-living God, who in the abundance of your kindness surpass the merits and the desires of those who entreat you, pour out your mercy upon us to pardon what conscience dreads and to give what prayer does not dare to ask” (#34).
Finally, he cites a catechesis from Pope Francis, wherein blessings are “offered to all without requiring anything (…) without preconditions” (#27). The Holy Father goes on to say: “It is a powerful experience to read these biblical texts of blessing in a prison or in a rehabilitation group. To make those people feel that they are still blessed, notwithstanding their serious mistakes, that their heavenly Father continues to will their good and to hope that they will ultimately open themselves to the good. Even if their closest relatives have abandoned them, because they now judge them to be irredeemable, God always sees them as his children” (#27).
Hammering moral truths to wounded sinners that come asking for a blessing to receive God’s help and comfort when everyone around them deserted them is counterproductive. It is by knowing that they are blessed that their hearts may be opened to God’s will, not by marginalising them further. The blessing enables and precedes the process of conversion, not the other around.
These are to be spontaneous, flowing from their non-liturgical nature. “When considered outside of a liturgical framework, these expressions of faith are found in a realm of greater spontaneity and freedom” (#23). “People who come spontaneously to ask for a blessing” (#21) can do so in extra-liturgical contexts, as for example, visits to shrines, pilgrimages, meeting with a priest (even in the street) and prayers recited in a group (#28, 40).
In a brief prayer preceding this spontaneous blessing, the ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance – but also God’s light and strength to be able to fulfil his will completely (#37).
Ian, [I’ve lost count of my comments, but this will be my last today!]
Gavin Ashenden calls Pope Francis and Cardinal Victor Fernandez a “treacherous pair” who have
betrayed the clergy… because people will test this out… they’ll come to them and say “The law now says “Give me this blessing, give it to me and if you can’t I will report you to the authorities, civil and ecclesial”; and since the Pope has given his permission… what priest is safe?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O_KwO0WiYI
Exactly the same problem I said that CoE vicars now face, although you tried to make a distinction.
@ Anton
One has read similar from others. But shouldn’t Catholic priests be made of sterner stuff than being intimidated into betrayal of the Gospel and their consciences by a small but influential minority? They’re hardly facing martyrdom. According to the terms of the document, discernment rests with the priest if he is approached. He will be accountable before God. So what if someone complains?
The series of articles in ‘The Pillar’ are amongst the best I’ve read on all of this. This one was on point:
I’m not going to escalate this, Jack; as you know I hold no candle for either traditional Catholicism or secularism, but in the specific point at issue between them I side with the former. But who is the traditional Catholic, you or Gavin Ashenden?
What you and he share is a faith (in the literal sense) that God will not let the Catholic church fall into error or contradict itself. For those of us who believe these things have already happened, it is not in doubt. But let time tell its tale.
@ Anton
My last comment on this before Christmas.
The only way to properly understand Fiducia supplicans is to read and digest the significant shift in pastoral care presented by Pope Francis’ in Amoris laetitia. I consider both documents challenging but orthodox if implemented prudentially by local priests.
As for Gavin Gavin Ashenden, I consider his warnings about the dangers of progressive liberals advancing in the Church to be sound, but also that he’s letting these threats cloud his judgement. Whilst the Church cannot erect barriers to God’s love and mercy, removing them in the times we live does not mean ignoring His justice and commandments.
This isn’t incidental to me and it’s something I’ve seriously thought and prayed about. These issues are the long-standing tensions, deep theological disagreements, and pent up concern about the direction of the Church,” referred to in The Pillar article.
The Catholic Church’s doctrine has frequently advanced through significant disagreements that have triggered development. We’re in one of those periods.
If the Catholic church doesn’t repudiate secularism then it has had it. At present it is embracing secularism rather than repudiating it. Ultimately both you and Gavin Ashenden believe that God will protect it from error. I not only disbelieve it but reckon the statement to be demonstrably false over a long period. I support efforts against secularism within the Catholic church, of course. Short-term, the question is who will be next Pope?
Rollin
I think its worth pointing out that even people who are very very very conservative on the issue of same sex marriage struggle to identify negative impacts of them on other people or society as a whole (hurricanes aside). In the examples of other sins the priest would have a moral obligation to protect others from harm.
I think a more analogous situation would be a straight couple where one of the couple has had an amicable divorce with no children involved
Peter, that is only the case if you identity ‘harm’ as ‘makes me feel unhappy’ (and even then, it is not hard to demonstrate this).
But the anthropology that underlies the acceptance of gay identity and sexual preference as morally neutral is killing the West. The detachment of sex and marriage from procreation means that, uniquely in history I think, Western cultures rank parenting and childbirth as of almost no importance. As a result, fertility and birthrates are plummeting, and Western society will be dead and gone in two generations.
I would call that ‘harm’.
Ian
You do understand that sounds as ridiculous as blaming the weather on the gays? Gay people are not causing straight people to have fewer children.
A clearer argument why white British and white Americans are having fewer children is that wages haven’t kept up with housing costs. Many more people are living at home into their 30s and 40s.
As a parent myself, I would argue that parenting is valued far higher than it was in the 70s or 80s…often it goes too far now with parents living vicariously through their children, but that’s a different issue.
Look deeper, Peter. Housing costs rose because they ceased to be geared to one income – a male breadwinner – and became geared to two incomes. That happened because more women regarded a career as more important and fulfilling than motherhood. Then, as their clock continued ticking, they decided they wanted children – but they literally could not afford to give up work or else they and their man would lose their home.
So your scenario, far from rebutting what Ian has said, actually supports it.
Peter, we cannot have a decent conversation if you don’t attend to what I said. Read it again: ‘the anthropology that underlies the acceptance of gay identity and sexual preference as morally neutral is killing the West’.
If you don’t believe me, read this feminist: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/modernity-is-making-you-sterile/
Harm?
There is all kinds of obvious harm that is clearly visible and impactful.
People are defying their own biology.
This estrangement and disaffection impacts their soul.
The family goes backwards – the very thing that should most go forwards.
Grandparents want grandchildren. They are wise, far wiser than the younger miscreants. They are very upset. And so they should be.
Likewise parents.
Wiser family members will see this as sacrifice on the altar of temporary pleasure.
Thus reversing all their good upbringing efforts.
And these things impact over 3 or 4 generations to come.
Ian
But I lived this! People were having recreational sex when I was growing up, when not only were gay people not accepted, but it was illegal for my teachers to say anything good about gay people. I’m sorry but the claim that acceptance of gay people is killing the west is ridiculous. And that’s putting it kindly.
‘I’m sorry but the claim that acceptance of gay people is killing the west is ridiculous. ‘
Again, I need to say: I am not claiming this. And having said this and repeated it twice, if you cannot read carefully enough to see that I am not saying this, I don’t know how we can have a conversation.
Ian
You’ve claimed repeatedly that the acceptance of gay people is causing harm in society because the underlying anthropology is that childbirth and parenting are not valued. (And you’re saying this to someone in a same sex marriage with two children who you think should be single and childless(!))
This is in response to me saying that blessing of a same sex relationship is not the same as blessing a sin that has an obvious harm on society. Its hard for me to understand if you are blaming gay people for straight women having fewer babies or if you are saying gay people are the victims of the same cultural attitudes that lead to women having fewer babies. I apologize if this is the latter, but if it is then I don’t see how your point connects with my response to Rollin?
Anton
But if that’s what you guys are complaining about then why the focus on a tiny percentage of the population and not on nearly half of the population who are liberated straight women?
@ Paul
Excellent comment!
It’s not just that parenting and children are of “almost no importance”, but rather the sacrifice this entails is avoided and children are only accepted on our terms. Separating sex and procreation means that children now have to add to our sense of personal fulfilment if/when our finances and careers are ready. We “need” the houses, the cars, the annual vacations, the savings, etc, beforehand. This is all upside-down.
Same sex couples can and do have children now too of course, via surrogates.
House prices have risen more because too few houses have been built and immigration hasn’t been controlled effectively than because women are in the work place
Several reasons, lower interest rates being one, family breakdown another, immigration a third, but gearing prices to two incomes rather than one is probably the strongest.
Housing has become a market commodity. Its price varies with both availability of stock and availability of money. If *every* household in the UK suddenly went back to single incomes, house prices would fall sharply until they became affordable again.
Having two income households has just pushed prices up accordingly.
Insufficient new homes is probably the biggest factor in the house price rise though and rising interest rates has started to see them come down a bit. Whether the new immigration controls the government has announced make a difference we shall see.
If both partners or spouses in a household worked full time then that would certainly impact on house prices. However often women move from full time work to part time work and a lower salary once they have children (much of which has to go on childcare costs for the days they are at work)
Insufficent new homes? Are you serious? The average occupancy is getting fewer and fewer all because people (or those in less healthy cultures) are unnecessarily living with their families less.
All because of the same sexual revolution that you are supporting. Ergo, you are co-responsible.
What has the same sex revolution got to do with it? There may be more divorced heterosexuals living alone and more single heterosexuals and homosexuals who don’t move in with a long term partner or spouse until their 30s or even 40s and live in their own flats or properties until then.
However fewer single people living with family, as say Asian or Italian singles live with parents until partnered or married, has nothing to do with the ‘same sex revolution.’ As partners and married couples, same sex or opposite sex are neither living single nor without children (as same sex couples can and do have children via adoption or surrogates).
While young Italian heterosexual men still living in the family home are often likely to have multiple sexual partners, while you might get a spinster living on her own without a sexual partner at all
T1
Surrogacy is pretty rare amongst gay people. It costs too much apart from anything. Most commonly gay people either adopt or parent children where one of the couple is a biological parent. Something like one fifth of same sex couples are raising children.
Dear Ian,
You suggest Peter J should attend to what you actually wrote – could I suggest you do the same with Louise Perry’s article, which I just read?
If I understand correctly, her argument is that we need to “find some way of marrying modernity with a culture that promotes and supports parenthood”. She does not ground her linking of modernity and sterility in an anthropology as far as I can see. She’s advocating a recovery of some traditional practices alongside what she sees as the goods of modernity, which I note includes “gay rights”. I don’t see her claiming that this requires a radical change in anthropology, and I don’t think she straightforwardly supports your case in the way you imply.
In friendship, Blair
Thanks Blair. It is a good job that I didn’t claim that she did support my reasoning. And it is not surprising, since she is an unbelieving feminist!
My link to her was simply to show that lack of fertility and child-rearing is an existential threat to our culture, which no-one wants to talk about. The question is how do we address that.
In her book, Perry argues that second-wave feminism (in contrast to first-wave feminism) disparaged women’s bodies and neglected motherhood. We have a different view on sexuality—and I am not suggesting that we should go back to pre-1967—but I would note that the unproblematic acceptance of same-sex marriage depends on a philosophical indifference to the importance of the body in relation to sex, marriage, and child-rearing.
Ian
Personally I don’t hugely value our culture and indeed want aspects of it to change (as do you!) so I don’t think we should be too precious about it.
Typically white native born people are having fewer children, but there are also more people than ever before wanting to move to Western countries. There’s an easy solution there. I don’t mean that there are not difficulties with mass immigration, of course there are, but there are always big difficulties with everything.
Thank you Rollin very perspicacious.
On asking for a Blessing and the way God describes how to bless His people
I suggest Numbers 6:22-27 where the priest cannot provide a blessing in his own words, nor has powers to transmit a blessing other than this prayer.
To do so is to rob God of His Glory.
Elements of the prayer in Numbers are reflected in several prayers in the Psalms.
Berean Standard Bible
Psalm 80:3 – Hear Us, O Shepherd of Israel
Restore us, O God, and cause Your face to shine upon us, that we may be saved.
New International Version Psalm 67:1
Restore us, O God; make your face shine on us, that we may be saved.
For the director of music. With stringed instruments. A psalm. A song. May
God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face shine on us—
Psalm 134
A song of ascents
1Praise the Lord, all you servants of the Lord
who minister by night in the house of the Lord.
2Lift up your hands in the sanctuary
and praise the Lord.
3May the Lord bless you from Zion
he who is the Maker of heaven and earth.
For a Jewish take on praying blessings see:-
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Blessings/Synagogue_Blessings/Priestly_Blessing/priestly_blessing.html#loaded
for the Barkat Kohanim – The Priestly Blessing
The priest must have clean hands[holy hands]
@ Alan K
The declaration develops teaching on “blessings” It convoluted and full of jargon, but essentially says there are three kinds:
1) A blessing from God to man, by which God pours gifts and helps upon man;
2) A blessing from man to God, by which man praises God for His goodness and majesty; and
3) A blessing from man to man to facilitate the pouring down of God’s help.
These recommended informal blessings fall into the latter category.
Yes, there is a long way to go yet before the Roman Catholic church follows many western Anglican and Lutheran churches and performs marriages or blessings of the unions of same sex couples. The Pope has offered blessings for the couple as people rather than their union.
However if in time the Vatican did move more towards the position of the German RC church in favour of allowing blessings of same sex unions and added to that acceptance of women priests and bishops then the road towards unity between Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism and Lutheranism would be open, certainly in the western world. The western heritage churches of apostolic succession could be united for the first time since the Reformation. Conservative evangelical churches in the C of E opposed to both same sex unions and marriages and in some cases women priests too could in turn go independent or merge with Baptist or Pentecostal churches
@ TI
You’re joking, right?!
No, unity of the Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran churches is probably closer than ever before. Certainly in the western world even if still some way off
It’s rather amusing to read that you are fine with the RC idea that one can really bless anything without endorsing anything in particular, when all the brouhaha sent up by the Conservative Evangelical Anglicans in recent weeks has been to say exactly the opposite…
One of my favourite photos to look at when I read such things is of Graham Dow, then Bishop of Carlisle and a leading Conservative Evangelical opponent of equality under the law for gay people, blessing a nuclear submarine.
Mark
Occasionally evangelicals here in the US still blame us gays for major weather events and the new Speaker of the House claims we were responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire…so maybe we are more dangerous than nuclear weapons?!
Bill Koenig is known for pointing out correlations between US weather disasters and certain human matters, but it isn’t to do with gays.
We have a guy called Tony Perkins who is head of one of these evangelical organizations that pretends to be a church for tax purposes. Trump made him chair of the commission on religious freedom (!) He famously used to blame natural disasters on gay people until his own house got flooded. He’s been rather quiet about it since then
That’s amusing and one thing we can agree about.
This is what I have been saying for months.
The new “blessings” aren’t anything new. In fact they put LGBT people in a worse position because at least one bishop is now telling his priests they may face legal action for blessing us (but not “fornicating boxers”!)
The opposition,even to what amounts to a facade of inclusion just shows how committed to treating LGBT people as especially sinful the conservatives are
You are right–there is nothing new here.
But on the other, you are wrong. It is not about treating ‘people’, but actions. And these are no more sinful than any other.
Ian
When you can demonstrate that these churches have actually stopped treating LGBT people as “less” then I will accept that the issue is marriage, not the people, but for me there is still too much abuse going on – usually people who are *not* married. These blessings are an excuse not to clean up the church.
How can I prove something about churches in the US with which I have no connection, yet you bizarrely connect me with?
Come to our church.
I’m talking about church of England churches.
Actually most churches in my area have full inclusion of LGBT people, which makes the abuses in the CofE seem even less tolerable.
Well given Synod has approved these blessings, legal action won’t get very far
Just FWIW
Lots of gay Christians (and straight Christians) do not believe that scripture condemns all same sex relationships. Indeed its really really hard to argue that from the plain text itself.
Peter, I find this a really puzzling comment. You appear to me to be reasonably well read. You comment here a LOT. And yet you seem to profess ignorance of the massive consensus of biblical scholarship, most of which is liberal on this issue: Scripture clearly and consistently condemns all same-sex sexual relations (NOT ‘same sex relationships’; I have a lot of these).
Have you not read Brueggemann, or Sanders, or Johnson, or Campbell, or Loader, or…? Here is a handy list of quotations:
https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/is-the-bible-contradictory-on-sexuality/
Ian
Because it isn’t a consensus. I don’t accept the standard evangelical view and lots of people disagree with you on this. Our understanding of scripture is unacceptable to you I understand that, but that doesn’t mean we don’t exist! Indeed not only are there lots of “liberals” who disagree with you, there’s no consensus on the conservative side of things either. There are rifts on whether its a sin to self identify as gay, if its a sin to be in a romantic relationship as long as there is no sex involved, if gay sex should be a crime, if gay people should be allowed to be priests etc etc.
Brueggemann says the conservative understanding of the clobber verses is at odds with other passages in scripture and therefore careful consideration of the context in which these are written must be given. His conclusions don’t agree with you.
What an odd comment. Brueggemann says that these texts are unavoidable. He does not say that they must be read in context—he says they must, in effect, be deleted, because the biblical writers and teachers (including Jesus) are incoherent and contradict themselves. He knows better than the biblical writers what the gospel actually is.
I don’t understand why you have misread these people—they are all theological liberals. they are not evangelicals! But they all agree: this is what Scripture says. You cannot duck that. So they all believe scripture is completely wrong.
Ian
I have to disagree with you there. There’s a difference between trying to understand what the entire canon of scripture has to say on an issue and claiming sections of scripture are “wrong”.
I disagree with your interpretation of quite a lot of the bible, but I don’t describe you as saying ” scripture is wrong” or claiming you want to delete parts of the Bible.
Are there any interpretations that are certainly wrong, Peter? If I say Romans 9 is talking about Kylie Minogue, is that certainly wrong? Where do you draw the line. It is common sense that well over 99% of interpretations are certainly wrong.
Indeed Christopher. If scripture can mean anything then it means nothing.
Scripture is not written like a contract negotiated between lawyers acting for businessmen who mistrust each other. It is an invitation written in good faith. It is not always received in good faith.
Christopher
I’m not trying to be the scripture police. I’m all for freedom of religion.
I’d love a discussion of (all of) scripture that went a bit deeper than merely denying anyone could possibly come to a different view than the evangelical establishment
Peter it is very odd for you to talk here about ‘view of the evangelical establishment’. Almost everything published on this blog is respectable, mainstream comment—including (as I have repeatedly demonstrated) the view that Scripture consistently rejects all forms of same-sex sexual relationship.
But I am not sure you read the 90% of the articles here which comment on other scriptural material, since you never, ever appear to comment on it. I am not sure why. Are you not interested in what the Bible in general says?
Will the evangelical establishment please stand up?
People have done the hard work of exegesis and linguistic study to narrow down possible meanings. Within that framework leading evangelical and other scholars disagree on many (usually small) points, but that is because in order to be a scholar you have to be very precise.
You actually think that an interpretation can be of any worth it it is just chosen or asserted??
You actually think that?
It is more likely that you have not thought this through, or somewhat meekly followed the culture.
Ian
Something to understand is that this is an issue that impacts me in a deeply personal way so I’m naturally more interested in it and have more to say about it than an article on which type of building Jesus was born in.
I’m very much interested in what the bible has to say and that’s why I have mentioned Scripture in a fair number of my comments. I don’t agree with your interpretation of it, sorry.
Peter, yes, I understand that. It affects me too, though not in such a direct way as you.
But let me be clear: I am not asking you to agree with ‘my interpretation’. I don’t have one. I observe what the language of Scripture says, and the overwhelming consensus of responsible interpreters, most of whom disagree with me on the ethical question.
That is, I think, as close as we can come to saying that scripture is clear, and is not subject to vagaries of interpretation in this area.
Christopher
Whether it is a sin to be in a celibate romantic relationship or not may seem like a small point to you, but its essential to gay people.
I was reading yesterday of a teacher who has been disciplined for allegedly telling a class that its a sin to be LGBT – I think most people here would disagree with that, but agree that same sex sex is a sin. These are not small points of disagreement because they have far more real life impact on whether Jesus was born in a stable or a cave. Some of those kids may go away believing that they are constantly sinning just by their very existence – and those are the kinds of thoughts that lead to self destructive behavior
Ian
No I don’t agree with your reading of scripture. I don’t agree that it mentions what we now call gay people or says anything directly about same sex marriage. I can’t say it clearer than that.
I acknowledge both that there are many who say Scripture is clearly opposed to all same sex relationships, but I don’t agree and plenty of theologians also don’t agree. Indeed the cofe wouldn’t be in crisis over this if there was agreement on what scripture has to say
Peter, saying ‘Scripture doesn’t mention gay people’ is a bit like saying ‘Scripture doesn’t mention introverts’. You are confusing a group of people with a modern label for a group of people.
Are you suggesting that there were no people with a settled attraction to those of the same sex in the ancient world? We know clearly that there were. Are you then claiming that the biblical authors did not know of such people? We know from contemporary jewish writers that they knew this very well.
Are you saying that the biblical writers do not agree with either your or other modern theories or constructions of gay identity? That is true, grounded in theological anthropology of humanity created male and female by God. If you are saying ‘that is the problem with scripture’ then you are rejecting scripture’s understanding of what it means to be human.
But also note that many people, including many gay people, do not accept popular constructions. Matthew Parris does not think that gay identity is immutable; neither does gay academic Lisa Diamond. And it is certainly not true that people are ‘born gay’ any more than they are ‘born straight’. People are not even born knowing there are two sexes!
To say ‘there is no agreement on what the Bible says, otherwise there would not be a debate’ is like saying ‘There is no agreement that the world is round, otherwise there would be no flat-earthers’. The arguments that Scripture is not clear on this are universally poor, which is why scholars of any stature reject them out of hand.
There are rifts on whether its a sin to self identify as gay, if its a sin to be in a romantic relationship as long as there is no sex involved, if gay sex should be a crime, if gay people should be allowed to be priests etc
1. This is partly about terminology, so differing parties should use terminology that they agree about before disputing the ontology – otherwise it is a waste of time. If ‘gay’ is taken to mean ‘experiencing sexual attraction exclusively to one’s own sex’ then no sin is involved and I don’t know any conservative evangelical who would say otherwise. If ‘gay’ is taken to mean ’embracing the gay lifestyle’ then on a biblical basis it is necesssary to look more closely.
2. It is not a sin to experience tempation, but it is unwise.
3. What the law ought to be depends partly on absolute moral standards and partly on what society is willing to enforce.
4. I would be happy to join a congregation led by ordained men such as Vaughan Roberts and Sam Allberry. I would not join a congregation led by a man in a gay partnership. No matter what anti-discrimination laws the over-mighty State puts through it cannot stop people from changing congregation.
Anton
There was a relatively recent rift in both the ACNA and GAFCON over inclusion of gay people who aren’t having sex or in a relationship. Exclusion and discrimination against them is a common theme in the writing of conservative gay Christians.
You draw the moral line between being single and being in a relationship. Amongst gay Christians the line is usually between having sex and not having sex (with relationships that don’t involve sex being in the not having sex side), which is called Side A and Side B.
I think I’m right in saying that in the past the government has not only required people to attend worship, but also required people to attend specific churches, but I agree I doubt that is likely to happen again any time soon.
True Peter, unless you were an Orthodox Jew (and as a nonconformist at heart I’d have been illegal), but attendance in the CoE has not been mandatory in England since 1688, which is not yesterday.
You fail to engage with the difference between “not having (gay) sex” and “not intending to have (gay) sex”. But the evangelical Christian is obligated to speak words toward the highest good of the hearer, and how is the avoidance of eternal damnation (St Paul at 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10) not a higher good than sexual pleasure?
Anton
I absolutely acknowledge the difference between being gay and having gay sex. I am saying there is a big disagreement amongst conservatives about what is and isn’t a sin when it comes to gay people.
Celibate gay conservative Christians arguably face the brunt of abuse and exclusion in the church because they are engaging most with the parts of the church that are most worried about gay people
Celibate gay conservative Christians arguably face the brunt of abuse and exclusion in the church because they are engaging most with the parts of the church that are most worried about gay people
Arguably? What you mean is that you are speculating. How many have you asked?
Anton
I’ve read anecdotes of terrible treatment and experienced it myself when I was a celibate gay Christian!
I have no substantial data on it
Peter, it’s no good at all saying ‘Lots of people disagree with you’. Their disagreement is only valid if its grounds are valid. So it is the grounds that you should be quoting. But you are not. Do, please.
Christopher
Perhaps its too anarchic for you, but I believe very strongly in freedom of religion. I think everyone should be free to read the Bible for themselves or not and be free to come to their own conclusions as to what it has to say.
You can dismiss my reading of scripture as wrong, but you can’t so easily ignore that many denominations in the west (including the RCC, TEC, Scottish Episcopal Church, Methodist Church of Great Britain and Church of Scotland) have shifted in their understanding of what scripture says about gay people and that a sizeable chunk of the church of England has too. Even most conservative statements on the issue start with some lines about apologizing for their behavior in the past.
Its valid to say there is disagreement. Its invalid to say “everyone who disagrees with me is either stupid or dishonest”. We get absolutely nowhere with that attitude.
Total nonsense.
1. Are you or are you not saying that anyone, however long they have studied the relevant culture and languages, has an *equally* valid opinion? I have to press you on this point.
2. Are you seriously saying that denominations speak with one voice?
3. Are you seriously saying that the voice[s] that they do speak with are internationally the most informed people who know the languages and cultures of the texts?
4. Who said the quotation in your last paragraph?
5. Does this same democracy apply to all topics? Am I now allowed to pontificate on astrophysics? I have to press you on this point too.
What you are talking about is nothing to do with ‘freedom of religion’. It’s ‘freedom from thinking’.
What are your answers to the simple questions 1 and 5?
And I see that your answer was not an answer at all. I asked for grounds. You merely quoted assertions of a position without mentioning any grounds at all!!
Anyone can assert things. People can assert that the moon is made of green cheese. Assertion is worthless unless it is supported by cogent argument. Didn’t you realise that?
And what has the study and accurate interpretation of texts got to do with ‘religion’?
1. No. Im saying people should be free to choose and develop their own religious beliefs.
On scholarly interpretation of scripture I would say you can’t simply reject someone’s understanding of scripture just because they disagree with you, *especially* if they have relevant experience or qualifications that you don’t have.
Part of the problem with evangelicals interpretation of scripture about gay people is that they are reliant on weird stereotypes and myths about gay people – theres usually a failure to connect to reality.
2. Again no. Although ironically conservatives often claim that all serious Christians agree with them, even though they do not agree with one another!
3. I am saying that denominations are shifting their understanding of what scripture says about gay people as they understand gay people better and can better interpret Scripture through gay eyes instead of using third or fourth hand information about gay people.
4. My quotation is a characture of conservative attitudes to people who disagree with them
5. I certainly don’t agree that people should be punished for believing the world isn’t flat. We need far more allowance of reason and reality in theology. If people have a reasoned argument they should be heard, not dismissed as not existing or trying to ban scripture. So much of conservative theology about human life seems to have been cooked up by old men who once read a poem about dancing, but have never heard music for themselves. Gay people are not unknowable demons, but people with an uncommon human characteristic that is a natural part of human diversity
What? So people just choose what to believe?
So it is raining and I can just ”choose” to believe it is sunny, and that belief is worth as much as the belief of someone who correctly says it is raining??
Choosing it makes it true, does it?
Or are you of the Pilate ‘What is truth?’ camp?
And what does ‘religious’ mean? Beliefs are either true or they are not. Choosing them will certainly not make them true.
If all that you say is based on this way of looking at things, that explains a lot.
Christopher
As long as you are hurting others or impinging on their freedom of religion you can believe the earth is flat for all I care
Nothing can be a total consensus if there are 8 billion people in the world with different levels of understanding.
Nothing can be a total consensus among scholars because scholars are so precise in their thinking. But a colossal amount can be ruled out.
Many things are a consensus among the vast majority of scholars.
What? Why would you listen to ‘gay Christians’ and ‘straight Christians’ most of whom do not even know Greek or Hebrew?
Are you serious here?
You can learn all the Greek you want and have no experience of the real world
No, Peter. We are talking only of cases where the topic is texts. What good is knowledge of the real world when it comes to correct interpretation of texts? None.
Secondly, I expect you have an area of expertise where you are knowledgeable. Maybe more than one. If a layperson came and said to you – You have studied this thing for several years and I have not ever studied it, but our opinions are of equal weight – what would you say to that person?
All they are doing is asserting that their opinion is of equal weight. They give no reason for anyone to believe that that is true, plus the fact that in the circumstances it is incredibly unlikely.
Third, in most circumstances knowledge of the real world is entirely positive.
Fourth, texts and languages are part of the real world. Are you asserting that they are not?
Fifth, you are speaking as though the world were divided into those who have knowledge of the real world and those who have knowledge of languages.
Well that can’t be right, can it? You have completely forgotten two large groups of people. Those who have knowledge of both, and those who have knowledge of neither.
Sixth, what you write is a cliche. And like many other cliches, it is repeated without ever having been thought through. As demonstrated above.
I’ve seen this said on a social media meme – understanding the reality into which ancient documents were written is only unimportant if the readers of your translation don’t care about the difference between a butt dial and a booty call.
And this is really where the CofE is – they are refusing to do any detailed work into what scripture has to say to gay people. Its as though the leaders don’t understand that “don’t have sex” is not comprehensive life advice.
Today’s episode of The Bulletin podcast from Christianity Today (with Russell Moore) discusses a lot of the confusion this proclamation is generating. They point out how a lot of photos of nicely-dressed same-sex couples standing before a priest started appearing on social media within hours of the announcement.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2ZjHt6PzJmGcIEmd5HRlso
Brian
The SBC, which is Moores denomination, only relatively recently starting permitting mixed race relationships. I don’t say this to belittle his interpretation of events, just to add warning that these types are not always trustworthy moral authorities.
Moore is a little better than most in the SBC imho
Edward Feser describes the confusions and contradictions in ‘Fiducia Supplicans’ under three headings (abuse, incoherence, implicature) and why it has drawn worldwide condemnation by Catholic leaders. He likens the situation to the condemnation of Pope Honorius in the 8th century for his confusions over the Monothelite controversy.
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/
Once it has happened it cannot by the nature of catholicism ever be erased?
Only if the Pope speaks ex cathedra which means, er, out of his seat.
I see what you did there. In such cases, when the Pope ventilates on the issues of the day, he is inflammable.
He just completely unnecessarily injected a terminal cancer into something beautifully intricate and broadly good.
Rather he has started a civil war in the Catholic Church, making the same mistake as Anglicans. Think of the fourth century and the long-raging Arian controversy.
Even Francis’s supporters in America (Robert Barron, Greg Pine) are embarrassed by this mess of an encyclical, and Pine is openly pointing out its faults.
It could be worse in the Catholic case since the Catholics are meant to be guardians of eternal truth so it is the d**** of a job to get rid of a teaching once it has entered.