TO THE QUESTION (DUBIUM) PROPOSED:

   Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?

RESPONSE:

    Negative.

     —The March 15, 2021 response (one week ago) of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium (question) regarding the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex. The response led to protests in some places, especially in Austria and Germany (link), where groups of priests and bishops said the response was un-Christian, and that they would continue to bless same-sex couples in their relationships. Then, on Sunday, March 21 (two days ago), Pope Francis himself, in his Angelus message (link), seemed to distance himself from his own Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (link), saying that every Christian’s mission is to act like Christ, adding that this “means sowing seeds of love, not with fleeting words but through concrete, simple and courageous examples; not with theoretical condemnations but with gestures of love.” Francis added that “then the Lord, with his grace, makes us bear fruit, even when the soil is dry due to misunderstandings, difficulty or persecution or claims of legalism or clerical moralism. This is barren soil. Precisely then, in trials and in solitude, while the seed is dying, that is the moment in which life blossoms, to bear ripe fruit in due time.” And Francis concluded that “it is in this intertwining of death and life that we can experience the joy and true fruitfulness of love, which always, I repeat, is given in God’s style: closeness, compassion, tenderness.” Irish Vaticanist Gerard O’Connell, who writes for the American Jesuit magazine America, said that three of his Vatican sources close to the Pope had confirmed to him that with these words Pope Francis intended to “take his distance” from the Response given by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to the dubium. (link) And this led the Chilean journalist Luis Badilla, editor of the influential Il Sismografo website (link) — who is generally very supportive of Pope Francis — to virtually throw his hands up in the hair and say “Enough!” Badilla said that the Church is suffering from too much confusion if O’Connell is right, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on one day authoritatively forbids the blessing of same-sex relationships, and the Pope only days later “takes his distance” in an oblique way from that very judgment (link). Thus today it remains a mystery whether Francis did or did not approve of the response given by the Holy See’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It seems to this write that Badilla is correct when he says that “on Catholic doctrine, the hierarchy ought to be very very clear”

    “It used to be said, ‘Roma locuta est, causa finita est‘ [“Rome has spoken, the case is closed”]: once the Holy See has expressed itself on a decisive doctrinal question, the discussion in the rest of the world is closed… Times have undoubtedly changed if, when a clear stance is expressed by the Vatican, it is greeted by silence, subtle distinctions, and open, vocal disputes, as has happened on the question of the blessing of homosexual couples.” —Jacopo Scaramuzzi, AskaNews, March 17, 2021, in a piece discussing reactions worldwide to the negative “responsum” of the Holy See to the question of whether the Church had the “power” to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex (see full article in Italian at this link and translated into English below)

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.” —Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons, Paragraph 4. The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations… and ordered their publication. Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003… Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect, and Angelo Amato, S.D.B., Titular Archbishop of Sila, Secretary —

    “Charity is to will the good for the other.—St. Thomas Aquinas (link)

Giving and Not Giving Blessings

    I have been reading in these past few days of March 2021 — as we approach Holy Week and Easter — about two controversies:

    (1) the morality of human sexual relations and whether Christian blessings may be extended from blessings of traditional marriages (between one man and one woman) to blessings of homosexual relationships, and

    (2) the morality of censorship in regard to child pornography and transgenderism — the first a censorship seemingly worthy of praise and support (as the Russian government has recently argued, link), and the second a censorship rightly blamed and problematic (as critics of Amazon have argued since Amazon in February completely erased from its website a book which raises questions about transgenderism, making it difficult to find or purchase).

    What follows below, then, are merely preliminary notes on point #1 (leaving Point #2 for tomorrow). I am trying to make an assessment of the parameters of these important debates. My aim, in my own mind, is to seek the “true good” of others, which — as St. Thomas Aquinas taught — is the essence of true Christian love, to which we are all called in this life.

    Below are texts which may prove useful in interpreting and evaluating the Church’s apparent — but still not clear(?) — position on the matter of blessing or not blessing same-sex unions.—RM

Luis F. Card. Ladaria, S.I. Prefect

16 MARCH 2021, THE TABLET (link)

German bishops ‘not happy’ with same-sex blessing rule

by James RobertsChrista Pongratz-Lippitt

   German Catholic bishop Georg Bätzing (above), president of the German Catholic Bishops’ Conference, is “not happy” with the Holy See’s ruling against the official liturgical blessing by Catholic prelates of couples in same-sex relationships

    The head of Germany’s Catholic bishops has indicated concern over this week’s Vatican ruling that the Church can never bless same-sex couples.

    The German bishops’ conference president, Bishop Georg Bätzing, told KNA on 15 March that he was “not happy” that the Vatican had now decided to participate so determinedly in the debate on blessings for homosexual couples.

    “It suggests that one wants to end the ongoing controversial theological discussions [on the subject] in various parts of the World Church, including in Germany, as soon as possible,” Bätzing said. “That is, however, impossible, as the issue is being intensively discussed with good arguments, and theological inquiries concerning today’s pastoral practice cannot simply be got rid of by laying down the law.”

    The Global Network of Rainbow Catholics (GNRC), a network of more than 40 organizations supporting LGBTIQ Catholics around the world, said: “This document is indeed a reactionary cry in response to the fresh air that is filling the Church from those parishes and lay communities around the world where blessings for same-gender couples are already a factual reality. The Vatican document, Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium regarding the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex, uses dubious theological arguments to reject the claims of a living Church that wants to reform outdated Catholic teachings on sexuality.”

    Michael Brinkschroeder, a Catholic theologian and member of the German GNRC member groups Homosexuelle und Kirche and QueerGottesdienst Munich, said: “Many German bishops have expressed their support of blessing ceremonies in the past and it is a relevant issue of the conversation of the Synodal Path. The chair of the German Bishops’ Conference has received the argumentation as a contribution to the ongoing conversation, but also said that it requires major and deeper theological arguments.”

    The National Network of Catholic LGBT Groups in Brazil said: “We are following today the repercussions of the regrettable declarations of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by refusing the possibility that priests of the Church bless unions between people of the same sex. It is with outrage, but without major surprises, that we become aware of both the denial itself and the arguments by which the document seeks to justify it.

    “We are outraged, but we are not surprised, because in this document we see that face of the Church that Christ himself criticized so harshly in the doctors of the law of His time. We see there that face of the Church that appropriates the power to interpret the Word of God not to propagate Life and make it flow in abundance, but to close doors and refuse to go to its People. By losing sight of the message of service, unconditional love and acceptance of the Gospel, the law becomes dead letter. This is the face of part of the Church, which falls, once again, into the empty legalism so often denounced by Christ.”

    The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said in a statement issued on 15 March. Any form of blessing of a same-sex union is “illicit.” This judgment, the CDF said, is on the blessing of unions, not the people who may still receive a blessing as individuals.

    However, the response to the question, “Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?” was “negative.”

    The statement was a response to a question or dubium that came from priests and lay faithful “who require clarification and guidance concerning a controversial issue,” the official commentary accompanying the statement said.

    “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 explanatory note said. Pope Francis signed off both the statement and the note.

    The statement sets a limit to the conciliatory approach to gay people that has marked the Francis pontificate, and contradicts calls from progressive bishops in Germany and elsewhere for approval of blessings of same-sex relationships.

    While priests in Germany have been blessing such couples for years, the CDF said it was not permissible for clergy to pronounce blessings on any sexual relationship outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

    The CDF employed the concept of “sacramentals”, a “category” to which blessings belong, to explain its ruling.  Sacramentals“have been established as a kind of imitation of the sacraments, [therefore] 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,” the explanatory note said.

    Same-sex blessings are wrong, according to the CDF, because they would seem “to approve and encourage a choice and a way of life that cannot be recognized as objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God …  God does not and cannot bless sin.”

    In comments published last year, the Pope expressed support for same-sex civil unions, saying that gay couples “have the right to be legally covered,” but he has also written: “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.”

Key Official Vatican Text

    Below is the complete text in question, of the dubium and the response regarding the blessing of same-sex unions.

    The CDF Responsum ad Dubium: Church lacks power to bless same-sex unions; a blessing would also be illicit (link)

    Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium regarding the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex

    TO THE QUESTION PROPOSED:

    Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?

    RESPONSE:

    Negative.

    Explanatory Note

    In some ecclesial contexts, plans and proposals for blessings of unions of persons of the same sex are being advanced. Such projects are not infrequently motivated by a sincere desire to welcome and accompany homosexual persons, to whom are proposed paths of growth in faith, “so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives”[1].

    On such paths, listening to the word of God, prayer, participation in ecclesial liturgical actions and the exercise of charity can play an important role in sustaining the commitment to read one’s own history and to adhere with freedom and responsibility to one’s baptismal call, because “God loves every person and the Church does the same”[2], rejecting all unjust discrimination.

    Among the liturgical actions of the Church, the sacramentals have a singular importance: “These are sacred signs that resemble the sacraments: they signify effects, particularly of a spiritual kind, which are obtained through the Church’s intercession. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions of life are sanctified”[3]. The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies, then, that “sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church’s prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it” (#1670).

    Blessings belong to the category of the sacramentals, whereby the Church “calls us to praise God, encourages us to implore his protection, and exhorts us to seek his mercy by our holiness of life”[4]. In addition, they “have been established as a kind of imitation of the sacraments, blessings are signs above all of spiritual effects that are achieved through the Church’s intercession”[5].

    Consequently, in order to conform with the nature of sacramentals, when a blessing is invoked on particular human relationships, in addition to the right intention of those who participate, it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. Therefore, only those realities which are in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by the Church.

    For this reason, it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex[6]. The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan.

    Furthermore, since blessings on persons are in relationship with the sacraments, the blessing of homosexual unions cannot be considered licit. This is because they would constitute a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing[7] invoked on the man and woman united in the sacrament of Matrimony, while in fact “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family”[8].

    The declaration of the unlawfulness of blessings of unions between persons of the same sex is not therefore, and is not intended to be, a form of unjust discrimination, but rather a reminder of the truth of the liturgical rite and of the very nature of the sacramentals, as the Church understands them.

    The Christian community and its Pastors are called to welcome with respect and sensitivity persons with homosexual inclinations, and will know how to find the most appropriate ways, consistent with Church teaching, to proclaim to them the Gospel in its fullness. At the same time, they should recognize the genuine nearness of the Church – which prays for them, accompanies them and shares their journey of Christian faith[9] – and receive the teachings with sincere openness.

    The answer to the proposed dubium does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations[10], who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching. Rather, it declares illicit any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such. In this case, in fact, the blessing would manifest not the intention to entrust such individual persons to the protection and help of God, in the sense mentioned above, but to approve and encourage a choice and a way of life that cannot be recognized as objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God[11].

    At the same time, the Church recalls that God Himself never ceases to bless each of His pilgrim children in this world, because for Him “we are more important to God than all of the sins that we can commit”[12]. But he does not and cannot bless sin: he blesses sinful man, so that he may recognize that he is part of his plan of love and allow himself to be changed by him. He in fact “takes us as we are, but never leaves us as we are”[13].

    For the above mentioned reasons, the Church does not have, and cannot have, the power to bless unions of persons of the same sex in the sense intended above.

    The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of this Congregation, was informed and gave his assent to the publication of the above-mentioned Responsum ad dubium, with the annexed Explanatory Note.

    Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the 22nd of February 2021, Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter, Apostle.

    Luis F. Card. Ladaria, S.I.

    Prefect

    ✠ Giacomo Morandi

    Archbishop tit. of Cerveteri

    Secretary

    [1] FRANCIS, Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, 250.

    [2] SYNOD OF BISHOPS, Final Document of the XV Ordinary General Assembly, 150.

    [3] SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, 60.

    [4] RITUALE ROMANUM ex Decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Ioannis Pauli PP. Il promulgatum, De bendictionibus, Praenotanda Generalia, n.9.

    [5] Ibidem, n. 10.

    [6] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357.

    [7] In fact, the nuptial blessing refers back to the creation account, in which God’s blessing on man and woman is related to their fruitful union (cf. Gen 1:28) and their complementarity (cf. Gen 2:18-24).

    [8] FRANCIS, Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, 251.

    [9] Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter Homosexualitatis problema On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 15.

    [10] De benedictionibus in fact presents an extended list of situations for which to invoke the blessing of the Lord.

    [11] CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter Homosexualitatis problema On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 7.

    [12] FRANCIS, General Audience of December 2, 2020, Catechesis on Prayer, the blessing.

[continued below]

    [13] Ibidem.

As a special thank you to readers of The Moynihan Letters, we would like to offer you the opportunity to pre-order Finding Vigano: In Search of the Man Whose Testimony Shook the Church and the World. With your purchase, you will receive a complimentary one-year subscription to Inside the Vatican magazine. Yes, order a book, and get a free 1-year subscription to our fascinating monthly magazine.

Order Finding Vigano and Get Inside the Vatican Magazine Free!

    Wednesday 17 March 2021 – 13:27

    No to the blessing of gay couples, Catholic dissent emerges Reactions in Germany and beyond to the Vatican “responsum” (link)

    by Iacopo Scaramuzzi

    Vatican City, March 17 (askanews) — It used to be said, “Roma locuta, causa finita”: once the Holy See expresses itself on a decisive doctrinal question, the discussion in the rest of the world is closed. As a mockery, there was a pure popular version of the same concept, “In Rome you make faith, elsewhere you believe it”: although tinged with irony (Rome, it is deduced, does not believe it), the conviction was however the rest of the world, acting in a disciplined way, followed. Times have undoubtedly changed if now when a clear stance from the Vatican is greeted by silence, distinction, open and vocal disputes, as has happened on the question of the blessing of homosexual couples.

    In summary: on Monday the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — the former Holy Office, guardian of orthodoxy in the Catholic world — responded with a negative “responsum” to a “dubium” about the legitimacy of blessing couples living with it in the Church sex.

    In itself, the Vatican note was deemed necessary because, as it said, “projects and proposals for blessings for same-sex unions are spreading in some ecclesial spheres.”

    The conclusion of the dicastery led by the Spanish Jesuit Luis Ladaria, however, leaves no opening: the Church “does not bless nor can it bless sin: it blesses the sinful man, so that he may recognize that he is part of his plan of love and leave himself change from Him.” Period.

    The stance received a very varied reception.

    The body of the Catholic Church, on the other hand, is plural, and to tell the truth it is not new that a Roman pronouncement — which moreover received the approval of Pope Francis — is contested by some. Perhaps the most striking case in the modern history of the Church — we were always talking about sex — was Paul VI‘s painful encyclical on the contraceptive pill, “Humanae vitae”, published in full 1968, triggered a crisis of conscience, grumbles, confusion among the most progressive faithful but also among the quiet couples of husband and wife caught between the economic impossibility, among other things, of having too many children, and the right desire — also recognized by the Second Vatican Council — to experience the joys of marriage.

    Montini’s letter was criticized, contested, even by bishops and theologians, disapplied. It was a trauma, even for the pope from Brescia, who from then to his death, which took place 10 years later, no longer published any encyclicals.

    Today it is different, and not only because a document that is undoubtedly lesser, by magisterial authority, than an encyclical provokes the debate: a simple “responsum,” in fact, of the very authoritative Doctrine of the Faith.

    But above all it is the tone of the debate that is, if not more relaxed, yet spontaneous, natural. Society has changed, but the Church has also changed.

    At the request of Pope Francis himself, however, the era of synods began: the Synod of Bishops, first of all, which in Rome, already in 2014, among many conflicts, had set aside the theme of homosexual couples, and which ended with the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (2016), however so controversial — “It is a fact that Amoris Laetitia has not yet been received everywhere in the world,” confirmed Cardinal Kevin Farrell — that on March 18 begins a special year dedicated by the Vatican to its application.

    In many countries of the world, not infrequently in the wake of the crisis of sexual abuse of minors, national synods have been convened to address the most disparate times, not infrequently connected with sexual morality. The Italian bishops’ conference, after Bergoglio’s insistence, finally announced an upcoming synod, the Australian bishops have announced the first assembly of a “plenary council” for next October, the Irish bishops have recently announced that they will start in the coming months to a synodal path, but the first was the German Church, which at full speed, already since the end of 2019, is carrying out, bishops and laity together, a “synodal path” that has aroused more than an apprehension in Rome.

    Among the most delicate issues, in fact, the blessing of homosexual couples: some German bishops already do so, the Vatican seemed to want to curb, with its “responsum,” the escapes forward.

    But the reaction, from Germany and beyond, was anything but docile. There is public opinion in the Church, as well as high-level Catholic dissent.

    The president of the German Bishops’ Conference, Msgr. Georg Baetzing, immediately commented, stating that “the points of view presented by the congregation for the Doctrine of the faith must and certainly will find a place in the discussions” underway in the framework of the synodal path that the German bishops, together with lay Catholics organized in the Zentralkomitee der Deutschen Katholiken have been carrying out since the end of 2019, an initiative that focuses on, among other things, “the need and limits of the development of Church teaching.”

    More explicitly, in an interview with the Katholische Nachrichten Agentur, the bishop of Limburg said he was “not happy” with the modality of the Holy See’s intervention: “It gives the impression that the theological debate, currently under discussion in various parts of the universal Church and also here in Germany, should finish as quickly as possible”. But “the discussion is intense and with good arguments in many places, and theological investigations of pastoral practice today cannot be eliminated simply with a word from above.”

    In a joint note, for their part, the two presidents of the forum who, within the synodal path, discuss in particular human relations (heterosexual and homosexual), Bishop Helmut Hier and laywoman Birgit Mock, affirm that it is possible “further develop the teaching of the Church in dialogue with the realities of life and the insights of the human sciences.”

    Mons. Hier then notes that with the Vatican pronouncement “it is taken for granted, and therefore it is recognized, that there are homosexual couple relationships” and that in them “there are positive elements that must be highlighted and valued in a way that they are treated with respect and attention”; the possibility of blindfolding these couples “is strictly denied with the current development of magisterial teaching.”

    Birgit Mock, for her part, points out that “blessings are not available, it is true. However, we must not miss the opportunity to recognize the foundations of God in the love of these couples.”

    Regardless of the synod, again in Germany, if some bishops — Stefan Oster (Passau), Rudolf Voderholzer (Regensburg), Wolfgang Ipolt(Goerlitz), Gregor Maria Hanke (Eichstaett) — agreed with the Vatican responsum, others have openly expressed their reservations: the Vatican stance is “disappointing”, according to the bishop of Dresden Heinrich Timmerevers: “It reflects current Catholic teaching and shows no further development based on current human scientific knowledge and current needs pastoral”; but “despite the refusal by Rome, the subject of same-sex couples blessings will not end there”. The bishop of Mainz Peter Kohlgraf said: “I take note of how many faithful are disappointed and hurt, and absolutely not only the people (homosexuals, ed.) Directly involved.”

    It is not only the bishops, however, who express their dissent.

    On the social networks two priests, Burkhard Hose and Bernd Moenkebuescher published a statement on the social networks that in a few hours collected several hundred adhesions: “In light of the refusal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to bless homosexual unions, we raise the voice and we say: we will continue to accompany people who are committed to a lasting union and we will bless their relationship. We do not refuse to celebrate a blessing. We do this in our responsibility as pastors who promise people in important moments of their life the blessing that only God gives. We respect and appreciate their love and, furthermore, we believe that God’s blessing is with them. The theological arguments and insights are sufficient.”

    In Austria, the members of the Pfarrer Initiative, always on reformist positions, say in a statement ‘deeply disturbed’ by the Vatican note: “It seems to go back to times we hoped were overtaken with Pope Francis”. But “in the future we will not refuse — in solidarity with so many people — any loving couple who will ask to celebrate God’s blessing, which they experience every day, even with a worship service.”

    In the Anglo-Saxon world, the positions are the most varied.

    If the Vatican pronouncement found the consensus of large sectors of American Catholicism, there was no lack of reservations, for example by the Jesuit James Martin, who has always been at the forefront of “building bridges” with the LGBT community. A big hit from the US episcopate, Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago, published a well-balanced comment: The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “offers nothing new on the Church’s teaching regarding the sacrament of marriage. Regardless, it must be read in the context of the teachings of the Catechism and the encouraging statements of Pope Francis to LGBTQ people about their relationship with the Church, as well as his exhortation that pastors welcome them with respect and sensitivity, recognizing, as the response of the Congregation does today, the many positive elements in relationships between persons of the same sex, “which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated.”

    However, the understandable reaction of many to this answer — continues Cupich — will be disappointment. “This should prompt us in the Church and Archdiocese to redouble our efforts to be creative and resilient in finding ways to welcome and encourage all LGBTQ people in our family of faith. “The understandable reaction of many to this answer” — continues Cupich — “will be disappointment. This should prompt us in the Church and Archdiocese to redouble our efforts to be creative and resilient in finding ways to welcome and encourage all LGBTQ people in our family of faith. The understandable reaction of many to this answer” — continues Cupich — “will be disappointment. This should prompt us in the Church and Archdiocese to redouble our efforts to be creative and resilient in finding ways to welcome and encourage all LGBTQ people in our family of faith.”

    On the other side of the world, Brisbane Archbishop Mark Coleridge, president of the Australian bishops’ conference, posed a question on Twitter: “A Church that cannot ordain women is forced to ask how we can include women in leadership, a Church that says it cannot bless homosexual unions is obliged to ask itself how we can better include homosexual couples.”

    In Ireland, a very popular priest, Father Brian D’Arcy said he was “very disappointed” by the Vatican pronouncement: “I thought it was quite harsh and at odds with the way the Church is doing right now. It was truly a throwback to the past.”

    And, of course, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has the role of defending doctrine and dogma to the end. And although this is understandable, there is now a greater awareness within the Church that this is not the only mission of the Church. “Roma locuta, causa infinita.” (“Rome has spoken, the case remains open.”)

    (by Iacopo Scaramuzzi)    

    Vatican ruling on same-sex couples prompts defiance, pain, confusion (link)

    By Philip Pullella

    VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – The Vatican’s directive banning the blessing of same-sex unions has sparked defiance among some priests in Europe and left bishops perplexed on how to minister to gay Catholics.

    Conservatives praised the ruling, issued on Monday by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but it greatly disappointed gay Catholics, who felt their Church was becoming more welcoming under Pope Francis.

    “I feel vicarious shame for my Church,” Johan Bonny, the Roman Catholic bishop of Antwerp, Belgium, wrote in a commentary on Wednesday in the Flemish newspaper De Standard.

    “I want to apologize to all those for whom this response is painful and incomprehensible… their pain for the Church is mine today … God has never been stingy or pedantic with His blessing on people,” he said.

    Bonny’s response was among the most blunt by a bishop. Others, such as Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Brisbane, Australia, pointed to the challenges the Church now faces.

    “It’s one thing to say we can’t bless same-sex unions. Well let’s then commit ourselves to grappling with the question about how else we might include same-sex couples,” Coleridge said on Wednesday in a webinar with the Catholic magazine The Tablet.

    “It’s just not enough to say ‘we can’t, we can’t”.

    Father James Martin, a New York Jesuit, said he feared the directive may prompt “some LGBTQ Catholics to leave the church, after years of feeling rejected and unwelcome.”

    In Germany, more than 1,000 people, most of them priests, had by Wednesday signed a petition in which they said they would not refuse to give blessings, according to Burkhard Hose, a priest who launched an initiative calling for “pastoral disobedience”.

    In some countries, parishes and ministers had begun blessing same-sex unions in lieu of marriage, and there had been calls for bishops to institutionalize de facto such blessings, although the practice caused alarm among conservatives.

    SURPRISE RULING

    The ruling, which the pope approved, came as a surprise to many in the 1.3 billion-member Church because he has been more conciliatory towards gay people than perhaps any other pontiff.

    He has held meetings with gay couples and encouraged those who want to raise their children in the Church to do so. In 2013 he made the now-famous remark “Who am I to judge” about gay people seeking God and trying to live by the Church’s rules.

    The Catholic Church teaches homosexual tendencies are not sinful but homosexual acts are.

    Bill Donohue, president of the U.S.-based Catholic League, which backs conservative views, welcomed the ruling in a statement in which he also criticized bishops in Germany who have expressed support for the blessing of same-sex couples.

    “It is one thing to say all persons possess equal dignity in the eyes of God; it is quite another to say that whatever they do is acceptable to God. Human status and human behavior are not identical,” he said.    

Facebook Comments