Fiducia Supplicans: To Bless or Not to Bless Same-Sex Couples?

In this video, we discuss the new Vatican document, Fiducia Supplicans, which allows blessings for couples in irregular situations, including same-sex couples. This Declaration, approved by Pope Francis, offers a pastoral and theological reflection on the meaning and value of blessings, and how they can express the Church’s closeness and mercy to those who seek them.
We explore the Declaration's controversial reception and how it is in fundamental continuity with the Church’s doctrine on marriage and sexuality while also developing and enriching our understanding of blessings.
We are joined by Fr Devin Roza, LC, general prefect of studies of the Legionaries of Christ and a doctoral candidate at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, who shares his insights and perspectives on the Declaration and its implications for the Church and the world.
✝️ Fiducia supplicans (Supplicating Trust):
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...
✝️ Interview with Cardinal Fernández:
www.pillarcatholic.com/p/card...
✝️ Responsum of CDF to a dubium (March 15, 2021):
press.vatican.va/content/sala...
✝️ Pillar article: ‘Fiducia supplicans’: Who’s saying what?
www.pillarcatholic.com/p/fidu...

[@limadelta17]

Blessings should come AFTER repentance, conversion, and CONFESSION

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

That’s true! Of course, God’s blessings also come down at the BEGINNING of the process of conversion (cf. CCC 2010), and DURING that process, as Scripture bears witness. The Old Testament refers to the act of conversion with the Hebrew verb “shub,” which literally means “to turn.” This powerful imagery implies that, for one who has turned his back on God, “conversion” involves a motion describable in two ways at once: 1) turning from the path of sin that leads to destruction and 2) turning toward the path of righteousness that leads to life, to our Father’s home, where his bounty awaits us. This act of “turning” necessarily involves a movement, a process, which admits of varying degrees. Indeed, in the parable of the prodigal son, after the son squanders his inheritance and prior to the confession in which he tells his father, “I have sinned against heaven and against you,” he takes countless steps which carry him away from the far-off country and which land him at last at the threshold of his father’s home. Every minute motion that counters the walk away from the father is a part of the process called “conversion.” In sum, precisely because God’s blessing is bound to the process of “conversion,” every baby step of that “turning” is blessable. For these are necessary preambles to the confession required for table fellowship with God and his Household. Thanks for listening and your thoughtful comment. God bless you! -- Fr Andrew

[@IslamicOrigins]

@@ThoseTwoPriests There is no conversion if you have a same sex couple. You are spreading lies. We the laity are sick of it. It isn't Catholicism. You are heretics.

[@salvadoralmeida7294]

You can pray for them, evangelise in the process towards repentance. No need to bless the couple. Lead them first to the sacrament of confession. For centuries priests would not bless couples in immoral relations. They were not fools. They were avoiding going down the rabbit hole and were preventing scandal.

[@limadelta17]

Thank you for your reply Fr. Andrew. I am no bible scholar but I really just want some clarity. I have an observation using your example above and connecting it the declaration, the father did not bless his son while his son was "sinning". The prodigal son was "blessed" only when he returned to the father and "confessed" to him and stopped his sinful ways. In the case of the declaration, a "blessing" can be given to the gay/irregular couple without any of them signifying any desire for conversion or repentance for their sins. It is very difficult to see that this act of "blessing" would bring them to want to change their sinful lifestyle. Don't "blessings" come from God and not the priest? A blessing is defined as - God's favor and protection. Would God really want them to continue where they are? What if something happens to them right after the "blessing" and they do not get a chance to convert and go to confession? Can we now enter Heaven even being clearly in a state of mortal sin? It is true that God is the only judge but does not the Catholic Church teach us that we should try our best to be always "ready" (be in the state of grace) since nobody knows when death comes and we will end up in hell if we die in the state of mortal sin? Jesus was very clear that we should carry our crosses. Doesn't carrying our crosses mean to constantly struggle against our sinful inclinations? Wouldn't this declaration also be contrary to the example of Jesus, in all his encounters with sinners in the bible, always with His last line to - "Go and sin no more"? With all due respect Fr. Andrew. I hope you can clarify. Thank you again. @@ThoseTwoPriests

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

@@limadelta17 I commend you for seeking clarity by asking excellent questions. You already show much understanding. As you rightly note, “blessings come from God.” Indeed, he is the ultimate source. But, in another sense, “humans also give blessings” (FS 27), and especially “the ordained minister” (FS 35). For, as the Declaration states beautifully, “In his mystery of love, through Christ, God communicates to his Church the power to bless” (FS 19). United to Christ, his Bride becomes the instrument of God’s blessing: God blesses through the emissary he empowers to bless. In sum, God blesses, and the priest blesses, each in his own way. Thus, since the priest shares in the theandric activity of Christ, it would be erroneous to affirm without further qualification that blessings do not come from the priest. Your definition of a (descending) blessing aligns with that of the Declaration: it is a “gesture of grace, protection, and goodness” (cf. FS 18). Let us apply this understanding to Luke 15. There, Jesus is seen receiving sinners and eating with them (15:2). This reception and table fellowship is itself a blessing - a show of grace and goodness. So, even prior to the sinner’s conversion and confession, Jesus’s drawing near is already a blessing. Indeed, he shows favor to the weak, to the ungodly, to sinners, to enemies (cf. Rom 5:6-10). Jesus’s parable (Luke 15:3-32) reiterates this point and fleshes it out further. For, when the Pharisees and scribes grumble to see Jesus blessing sinners with the gift of his close company, he proceeds to intensify the very point which scandalizes them. He does so by telling a parable that likens his invitation to eat with sinners with God’s invitation to share the eschatological banquet with sinners (cf. CCC 589). The string of five verbs in Luke 15:20 is especially important. For it underscores Jesus's eagerness to bless the sinner, even before he is able to utter a single word of confession: “while [the prodigal son] was still a long way off, his father _saw_ him and _felt compassion,_ and _ran_ and _embraced_ him and _kissed_ him.” In truth, every small step that the sinner takes toward the moment when reconciliation is realized is already a fruit of God’s prevenient grace. Countless blessings come _before_ conversion is completed. These prompt, prepare, and perfect conversion. Now, you claim that, “[i]n the case of the declaration, a ‘blessing’ can be given to the gay/irregular couple without any of them signifying any desire for conversion or repentance for their sins.” And yet, not a single sentence of the Declaration expresses this claim. However, it does express that the blessing may be imparted on those who recognized themselves destitute and in need of God’s help (cf. FS 31). Besides, even if Declaration had made that claim, it clearly states that the blessing “disposes man’s heart to be changed by God” (FS 27). Thus, it would be false to claim that the Declaration is uninterested in the conversion of sinners when it endorses the blessing of sinners. Such blessings do not communicate the idea that God wants sinners “to continue where they are.” This assumption is brought into the text, but not derived from it. You ask, “Can we now enter Heaven even being clearly in a state of mortal sin?” Certainly not! Nor does the Declaration ever suggest otherwise. To impart a blessing is not to declare one in a state of grace, much less a guarantee of going to heaven. A blessing disposes the sinner’s hearts to move toward repentance. By all means, only those who die in a state of grace go to heaven. So, we should always strive to remain in a state of grace. But, our God is so good that, even when we are not in such a state, but provided we long to be one step closer to it, we can ask for a blessing and receive it. That’s good news! In light of these observations, I’d humbly invite you to re-read the Declaration, ideally after a quiet moment of prayer and praise. I think you’ll find that there is less cause for concern than you originally imagined. Do not let your heart be troubled. With my prayers and priestly blessing, Fr Andrew

[@theda5493]

Fr. Chris Alar has given the best indept explanation of this document....

[@xtusvincit5230]

No way. Blessing implies approval. A man seeks his gf's fathers blessing. He is seeking approval. Blessing is approval. Once cannot bless evil. This is absolutely wrong.

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

Indeed, one cannot bless evil. Thus, insofar as one seeks approval or legitimation of that which is evil, one thereby places oneself outside the boundaries set by the Declaration (cf. FS 31, 34, 40). And yet, sacred ministers can bless those who seek a blessing of all that is good, true, and humanly valid in their lives and relationships (FS 31). -- Fr Andrew

[@Psalm_xxiii]

​@@ThoseTwoPriests With respect Fr, doesn't the second paragraph of your comment refer to their "relationships" as stated in the document? So the blessing even if it were to be done according to the document, is still for the sake of their relationships is it not? That's what it is implying, and where I think much of the confusion is centered around. For it would not be necessary to have a document made up if it is only referring to the individual and their platonic relationships as those blessings already existed.

[@christopherrodgers3616]

Thank you, Fathers, for this supportive presentation of Fiducua Supplicans. My opinion is that issuing it was absolutely the right thing to do. There are so many in irregular relationships who do not trust the Church. This may help to heal some of that.

[@auroravirgen6525]

The Bishops of Africa are speaking very strongly against the document released by Pope Francis . I am pretty sure the bishops of Africa can read. The gaslighting has to stop. We have to call a spade a spade. I appreciate the mental gymnastics of faithful priests, but weaponized ambiguity is the problem with this document. "Couples are blessed" implies that the actions of the couple are also being blessed, just ask Fr. James Martin. 😢

[@chriswyles553]

The problem is that the document explicitly states that the union of the couple cannot be blessed.

[@mimirydblom3133]

@@chriswyles553”if it gives the appearance of evil….”

[@chriswyles553]

The suggestion is that all blessings asked of a priest should be subject to a thorough moral examination? It is neither practicable nor charitable. It is perfectly clear that the union is not to be blessed, and that somebody seeking God's assistance in living a faithful life can be blessed. I'm not sure what the issue is with that?

[@johnnymism]

​@chriswyles553 it allows for a couple to be blessed, including those in same sex unions and it tries to escape this madness by saying its not their union that's being blessed but them, a total farce. They are blessed as a couple.

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

Of course, like all texts, this one too has ambiguities. And these are certainly weaponizable. But they are equally harmonizable with the living Tradition of the Church. A harmonizer uses the text, whereas a weaponizer abuses the text. Let's make harmony, not war. -- Fr Andrew

[@michelemcdermott75]

All that comes out of Rome is Confusion! “For God is not the author of confusion but of peace….which clearly tells me a lot! Will you then address the Pachamama? Canceling of the Latin Masses? Maybe you need to have James Martin join your discussion.

[@1BUKKAKE]

That is Pope Francis special signature. Confusing people all the time. He is the Pope of Confusion. This crap never happened under Pope Benedict XVI who was a master theologian and academic professor.

[@aloysiusezeonyeka6472]

Thank you for being a holy man Mike. I can see and feel your holiness, humility and obedience from here. Blessings!

[@antonecimovic3210]

Thanks for your comment, you are really true priests. May God bless you!

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

Thank you. And God bless you too!

[@charlesaryan8306]

I'm wondering Fathers, if you are familiar with an idea that used to be expressed in older moral manuals. It is called "scandalum pusillorum" ("scandal of the weak"). This is where one's charity is to extend to the week or ignorant and thus one should not even give the appearance of evil to another so as to not provide an occasion of sin. Thus for example, if a priest were to blesse an individual dressed in the clothing of the KKK he would be giving scandal to the weak, because he is at the same time giving the impression to others (whether one wishes to do so or not) that by such a blessing he (the priest) is giving his approval of the KKK, given the common understanding of what a blessing is among ordinary lay people. It seems to me that a priest is doing the same thing when he blesses a couple who are known to be in an irregular union.

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

Yes, St. Paul makes this point about the weak and the strong at the end of his Epistle to the Romans. FS is also sensitive to this issue. It requires that these blessings be done in such a way that avoids scandal (cf. FS 30, 39). But it is not scandalous to bless those crying out for God's help in order to live more faithfully. It is arguably scandalous to deny such a blessing. - Fr Andrew

[@charlesaryan8306]

A priest would not be denying them a blessing if he blessed the homoseuxals individually / separately (since the blessing is intended for them as indiviuduals and not as a couple). In this way the best of both worlds is achieved. In other words, the homosexuals get the blessing they requested, and scandal of the weak is avoided. @@ThoseTwoPriests

[@angelamfranco3583]

However, at the end of every Holy Mass, the priest blesses everyone regardless. Also at the moment of our Holy Communion, anyone can ask for a blessing by crossing their arms. So, why the need for all these new statements and new procedures? If you are sincere and you want to be close to God walk into a church and visit God.

[@pepeinno9336]

Exactly

[@stevedoetsch]

The purpose of the document is to acknowledge the two sodomites as a "couple" in a "union" which teaching is a novel heresey hidden in the 99% of the document which is just redundant traditional teaching. A poison pill is 99% percent inert matter which is the necessary carrier for the 1% poison. 😢

[@cristiano7ronaldoTHEGOAT]

Blessing same sex couple is immoral. Its blessing the union of same sex couple. If it bless individuals, then its okay but if you bless same sex couples. NO.

[@thxverymuch6962]

They’re back! WOOO!!!

[@Strive1974]

If I left my wife and found another woman, could I go to a priest and ask for a blessing? Why should it be different for same-sex couples? Jesus never compromised to appease the world.

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

Thanks for your thoughtful questions. As the Declaration makes clear, insofar as a spontaneous blessing is categorically different from a liturgical one, yes, a divorce and remarried person can indeed receive such a blessing, provided one has the proper dispositions. So, you’re right to suggest that there is no difference for same-sex couples in this regard. Though Jesus never appeased the world, he did love the world, so much so that came into our darkness, emptying himself, to seek and save the lost. God bless you, Fr Andrew

[@day1678]

Jesus never compromised with Truths!

[@lianasammartino8490]

REPENTANCE first, CONFESSION and then all the graces of the Lord! I also do not intend to stop the work of the Holy Spirit, and I know that the Lord was working in me while I was a sinner...

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

Notice how the second sentence contradicts the first one. By God's grace, the sinner is moved to repentance and confession. Now, if some grace precedes repentance and confession, then not "all the graces of the Lord" come after repentance and confession. Indeed, the perennial teaching of the Church is that conversion can only come through the gift of grace (cf. CCC 1453, 1498, 1996).

[@jeannenollen4492]

Parishioners are NOT laughing Fathers. I was blessed to be taught, from the pulpit, by on-fire, non-compromising priests. They led me by their example! Where are those priests now, when we need them more than ever!

[@dirkbaeten6949]

Thank you. This seems like a great commentary about the controversial aspect of this document. I think it's important to understand how confusing the use of terms like couple and union can be, knowing that someone even like cardinal Müller, former prefect of the CDF, sees no fundamental difference between blessing a couple and blessing a union. I have read that he said the following: "It is true that Cardinal Fernandez, in later statements to Infovaticana, said that it is not the union that is blessed, but the couple. However, this is emptying a word of its meaning, since what defines a couple as couple is precisely their being a union." I imagine that the analysis of cardinal Müller will continue to be used and supported by those who see Fiducia Supplicans as a threat for the church. It would be interesting to hear about his reaction to your video here :)

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

Thank you for your kind words and thoughtful commentary. God bless you!

[@thecoffeeclutch3623]

I have read the text and while there are lots of Catholic things said, in the end we have a picture of Father Martin blessing a gay couple, hands held, wedding rings on, heads bowed, and the the damage is done with absolutely no repercussions from Rome. (A picture is worth a thousand words) So it would be fair to assume Rome is okay with the whole thing. This document is not universally accepted. I stand with the Bishops of Africa, some in France and other places around the world, along with many priest and laity. Ask yourself if the "couple" were a mother and son, Father and son...would you bless "what is good in the relationship"? There is an old saying - "Evil works best in collusion with good". While you are busy looking at the "good" in the document, understand as Father Martin has so correctly said "much has changed". May God bring the Church wisdom to lead our young people without confusion.

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

The picture of Fr Martin in the NY Times is clear evidence that his blessing was programmed for public consumption -- this is a violation of Fiducia Supplicans, which requires such blessings to be spontaneous and cautious to avoid scandal. Violations of FS incriminate the violators, not the document which signals the violation. While we might wish for Rome to exercise more Church discipline for violators, it is not safe to assume Rome is okay with the whole thing. There is scandalous misbehavior from the opposite side of this story which goes undisciplined. It is absurd to think Rome is equally okay with opposite perspectives. Sadly, you're right, the magisterial document is not universally accepted. But dissent from magisterial teaching does not diminish its authority. The ordinary Magisterium enjoys a charism of divine assistance, and Catholics owe religious submission of intellect and will to its teachings. - Fr Andrew

[@thecoffeeclutch3623]

We are bound to dogma/doctrine and the deposit of faith. Popes only speak infallibly when speaking excathedra. If you can find sense in the document then so be it. You don't bless people who come to you even privately, in the state of mortal sin and bless what is good in that state/relationship. There is no excuse for such confusion. God have mercy on us.@@ThoseTwoPriests

[@rudya.hernandez7238]

Blessing individuals I get that, but the couple? Where does it make any sense to bless anything in which the expressed fulfillment (according to God's Will and Commandments) of such a blessing means its (the thing being blessed) own destruction?

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

You raise an excellent point. The couple is constituted by exactly two individuals. So, to bless the couple is to bless the two individuals. But that is not to say that we bless the couple qua couple. In the same way, we bless sinners, but that is not to say that we bless the sinner qua sinner. We bless the sinner so as to dispose him to cease sinning (cf. FS 27). Likewise, we bless the couple to dispose the two individuals to cease their disordered behavior and live in accordance with God's will. That said, it is legitimate to wish for more explicit and clear phraseology than is found in Fiducia Supplicans. But the text is defensible as written and in keeping with conventional parlance.

[@ambbarofficial]

Two words: 1. Ambiguity. 2. Again.

[@aloysiusezeonyeka6472]

Well, welcome to the gospel (which gave birth to thousands of churches). Yet, those sheep that belong to Christ, hear his voice and they follow him (because for them, there's no ambiguity), regardless of all the noise and self-righteous bashing of the Church.

[@babsmarie]

The problem is the document states that a "couple" in an irregular unioncan present themselves as a couple for a blessing. By blessing them as a couple you are bringing validity to them as a couple which brings scandal to the Church. Why are they a couple but due to their relationship. I know you are trying hard to make the document right but it won't work! God bless you as you serve Christ and His Church!

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

I understand your point. But a careful reader does not force a certain reading upon a text when that reading is repeatedly denied by the text. The Declaration states explicitly that the blessing does not claim to sanction or legitimize anything (cf. FS 11, 31, 34, 40). It is gratuitous to assume that the blessing of the couple validates them as a couple. We may bless the couple. But we may not bless the couple qua couple. In the same way, we may bless the sinner. But we may not bless the sinner qua sinner. Rather, we bless the sinner to dispose his heart to be changed by God, to dispose him to sin no more. The Declaration itself alludes to this dynamic (cf. FS 27).

[@Coffeebreakcatechism]

May the scales fall from your eyes…

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

I (Fr Andrew) pray that prayer for myself too. God bless you!

[@enzos6743]

Well if you agree with same sex blessings you better pray more

[@julieolson9556]

I think your new podcast, ThoseTwoPriests, is welcome and needed. I have a recommendation, which I hope you take in the way it is intended because I only want your success. I would recommend upgrading your mic/sound system; I found the sound quality to be a little distracting after watching shows like Pints with Aquinas.

[@xtusvincit5230]

Priests will be ambushed after Sunday masses to give blessing which will be recorded and broadcast and manipulated.

[@pepeinno9336]

How on earth will a priest know that the couple is not coming to legitimise the bad things without questionning? A priest cannot have the right to risk the eternal life of anyone so what the document proposes is fallacy.

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

That's a fair question. But we could also ask a similar one: how will a priest-confessor know that a penitent is not coming to legitimize his sinful behavior without questioning? Of course, the priest can watch and listen attentively. While he must not automatically assume ill intent, if he perceives any reason to question the sincerity of the one who approaches him, he may do so. Likewise, a priest called upon to bless a same-sex couple is not prohibited from asking a question when he finds reason to do so. Nothing in the Declaration counters this claim. On the contrary, it demands that the priest be prudent and wise (cf. FS 30). -Fr Andrew

[@erikb3041]

Oh wow. The best thing to come from the fiducia is it brought these two priests out of KZbin retirement 😁

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

Not retirement, just hibernation :)

[@enzos6743]

They came out of Hibernation to defend evil wake up people, read the Bible, next they will marry same sex couples give them a inch they will take a mile

[@vch5698]

I was wondering if this concept of blessing matched the Bible. I have not always been convinced about the aproach on this topic in the last years. Since it was impossible to make an entire study of the Bible on Blessing, I picked up a Biblical dictionary which has done that already. It has a list of words that are typical to the Bible, like "sacrifice" or "glory", and describes how the word in question plays out through the Old and New Testament in about 1-3 pages. I was expecting a description of how certain things can be blessed and others cannot be blessed. That concept was there, but in about 2 lines. The rest of the 3 pages was all about God's abundance and how it is only through God's blessings that we have what we have - whatever it is that we have. It shows how Israel was only able to progress THANKS to God's blessings. I was actually quite amazed. I felt challenged in my way of understanding God's blessings. I thought... well, I guess Fiducia is right in its concept of blessing... I felt challenged to see myself as a sinner too, who is very "lucky" - or blessed!- to be receiving more blessings than other people. I felt called to be more generous in the blessings that I could give to others... just like the rain in the following passage: Mt 5: 43-48 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray [is asking for a blessing a prayer? I would say so...] for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect." I have felt challenged by Fiducia.

[@DoubleDogDare54]

You forgot that Sodom and Gomorrah got nuked because of what the Vatican has decided can be blessed now.

[@juniorrodriguez1307]

Nothing that divides us can come from God our creator. I wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of a priest right now, the wicked priest will bless the sin and the strong will watch without resistance regardless of their objections. We have to keep praying and seek for the truth more than ever in our time. Don’t you worry our lord Jesus Christ promised to come back and claim His church

[@jonathanstensberg]

Thank you fathers for your clear interpretation of the beautiful teaching the church! As you can already see from the comments, you will have your work cut out for you to evangelize the people with this good news. I pray this yoke for you will truly be easy, and the burden light.

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

Thanks for this kind encouragement and for your powerful prayers. God bless you!

[@bridgetdoyle5820]

what the document proposes is insidious in nature. This is not just my opinion but the opinion of Cardinals, bishops priest , theologian’s and Cannon lawyers, including Cardinal Gerhard Müller who has published a response to the controversial Vatican document Fiducia Supplicans (FS). For those of you don’t know Cardinal Müller held the same exact position as cardinal Fernandez, prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith( PDDF )who put out the resent FS document. What is being proposed is that there is going to be a new blessing which is not a blessing of the church or of a priest acting as a priest. It’s just a spontaneous blessing that is outside of the liturgical practices of a priest. The problem with that is the priest can never separate himself from Christ. He is the persona of Christ here on earth. Anything or anyone that the priest blesses would be blessed by Christ. So that in and of itself would be hypocrisy, and not possible . According to cardinal Müller “this would mean that he would not be acting as a priest. In fact, he would have to give these blessings not as a priest of Christ, but as one who has rejected Christ. In fact, by his actions, the priest who blesses these unions presents them as a path to the Creator. Therefore, he commits a sacrilegious and blasphemous act against the Creator’s plan and against Christ’s death for us, which meant to fulfill the Creator’s plan.” It is the upmost important that a priest only would do what Jesus would do. If a priest differs in his duties of In persona Christi he has made a mockery of Christ and mockery of the priesthood and himself. The only form of spontaneous duty that HE, the priest, should be doing for a couple is praying for them. Blessings can only be invoked with certain conditions. Blessings are always under the condition that the person is open to God’s will ! This misleadingly is stated in the FS document as a sort of absolution for the “sin of which this insidious document is about to present”. Müller emphasises blessings contemplated by the Roman Ritual are only possible over “things, places, or circumstances that do not contradict the law or the spirit of the Gospel” (FS 10, quoting the Prayers can always be invoked. ) You can’t always have a blessing but you can always pray. When a priest blesses someone it is giving a guarantee of God’s blessing especially in the liturgical and Sacramental form i.e. the only form. He argues blessings “invokes the descent of God’s gifts upon the relationship itself.” This is the only form that is currently still Catholic Church doctrine. For he points out that “The document, which was neither discussed nor approved by the General Assembly of Cardinals and Bishops of this Dicastery, acknowledges that the hypothesis (or teaching?) it proposes is new and that it is based primarily on the pastoral magisterium of Pope Francis.”.

[@antoniolemos5111]

You are the best❤

[@pepeinno9336]

Listen, even marriage without this obscuring arrangement is hard to understand. It will be even harder with this new addition. In other words, this new thing will cause people to find a false legitimacy to what is illegitimate.

[@pyrkhatlangkshiar9180]

Leviticus 18:22 is not allowed at all for same sex marriage who is greater the word of God or the the rule of human being...

[@avidreader2023]

It seems to me that priests are being asked to bless sinful relationships (paragraph 31) without actually blessing the sin. If that’s even possible, they would surely still be blessing a near occasion of sin.

[@aloysiusezeonyeka6472]

Precisely the objections the pharisees had against Jesus for blessing tax collectors and prostitutes with his presence. "Blessed are your eyes for seeing what you see....", said Jesus. For Jesus to grant his presence is to bless and he offered himself and that presence indiscriminately.

[@thomastheconvert8136]

The word “Couple” infers a Union. This more you split hairs, the more you add to the confusion.. The prodigal son returns in repentance. I pray for all of you, but I ask you to look at this video and be open to the idea this may add to the confusion. Among sinners I am the first, I hope this comment doesn’t offend you.

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

No offense taken. I agree that the word "couple" implies that there is a union that constitutes the couple as such. Similarly, the word "sinner" implies that there is a sin that constitutes the sinner as such. Of course, one may bless a sinner but not the sin. Likewise, one may bless the couple but not the union. Hope that helps, brother. God bless you! - Fr Andrew

[@teresaniumata2742]

The Church way to heaven,now is the way to he'll because of Begolio.

[@teresaniumata2742]

God doesn't confuse us He is very simple man and woman.if we all use our Catholic commonsense.

[@JesusChristisLordhavefaith]

Hosea 4:6 KJV 6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. 1 Corinthians 6, 19-20 KJV 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. Matthew 18:6 KJV 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Leviticus 20:13 KJV 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be Upon them. Acts 3:18-21 KJV 18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. 19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. Thank you Lord Jesus Christ

[@jimw5142]

The Life of Saint Basil the Virgin-Martyr of Mangazea Protector Against the Sin of Homosexuality

[@dennisbrower7959]

With this logic shouldn't the next papal document come out in favor of blessings for prostitutes?

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

If it did, would that scandalize you? Since Christ blessed sinners by drawing close to them, so should we. The Pharisees were scandalized by his super-abundant mercy. But on that occasion Christ only scandalized them further by telling a parable (Luke 15:1-32) that implies that he was like a father who invites sinners to the eschatological banquet (cf. CCC 589) and smothers them with kisses, even before they utter their confession (cf. Luke 15:20), in the hope that these gracious signs of love might stir their hearts and prompt them to enter willingly into full communion.

[@etc3776]

What makes the couple a couple if not the relationship?

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

What makes the sinner a sinner if not his sin? Indeed, sin does make him sinner. And sin may not be blessed. And sinners may be blessed, though not qua sinners. Note the perfect parallel: What makes the same-sex couple a same-sex couple if not their homosexual relationship? Indeed, their homosexual relationship does make them a same-sex couple. And homosexual relationships may not be blessed. And same-sex couples may be blessed, though not qua same-sex couples. - Fr Andrew

[@etc3776]

@@ThoseTwoPriests This is not a parallel. The sin is not the essence of the sinner. The term is used to describe the state he is in. Remove the sin, and you still have a person. The relationship is the essence of a couple. Remove the relationship, and you have two individuals and not a couple.

[@kyler9323]

Fathers, thank you for the presentation and discussion. I'm half way through and am finding it helpful. Question: you mentioned that the document is allowing the blessing of the relationship qua friendship (as opposed to qua sexual union). In the classical understanding of friendship, in order to be friends one has to be in the life of the other (it is about shared pursuit of the good life) and distance leads to dissolution of friendship (even if the friendship can be picked up again, when life is once again shared, at least in a minimal sense). For example, I am good friends with person x, but then I move away and don't see him for 10 years. We don't even correspond during this time. Am I still his friend? No, even if we can easily pick it up again at any time. Likewise, being God's friend means having a shared life with the Trinity (via sanctifying grace). Now, I think it is hard to hold as likely and reasonable that a same-sex couple, who is already in a sexual union and perhaps living together, will be able to turn that sexual union into a purely platonic relationship. I think it is fair to say that the most prudent thing that can happen is significant distance coming between the two, at least until the eros between them dies out. That would mean at a minimum, moving out and seeing each other less and perhaps not even outside of group settings, but likely it would mean a parting of ways. Given that, why are we blessing their relationship qua friendship when really what needs to happen is that friendship needs to dissolve or become significantly attenuated, at least for a time?

[@kyler9323]

Also, can we really say that a single relationship can be thought of qua two different things (sexual and friendship). I get the virtual distinction in our thoughts, but isn't the relationship, concretely in reality, really a single thing, a single type of thing? A friendship that is sexual or a friendship that is not sexual? It's not like there are two unions here, in a single relationship, are there (platonic and sexual)?

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

Thank you for your kind words and thoughtful comments. Your excellent question comes at the end, but you also set it up intelligently. I'd like to address that setup too. You're right to note that friendship, in the Aristotelian-Thomistic sense, always implies something in common, some reciprocity. And, yes, "distance leads to dissolution of friendship." But this process of dissolution implies that some elements are shared even while the friends are apart. Indeed, we are apart from most of our friends most of the time. Indeed, all my friends are apart from me now. But it is obviously false that I have no friends right now. I also understand what you mean here: "being God's friend means having a shared life with the Trinity (via sanctifying grace)." But, in context, you seem to imply that those deprived of sanctifying grace have nothing at all in common with God. And yet, sinners may have actual grace without sanctifying grace. Indeed, in its discussion of spontaneous blessings from same-sex couples, the Declaration refers explicitly to "actual grace" -- such help from heaven propels us toward sanctification. For example, when Jesus blesses sinners and tax collectors by being present to them at table, this drawing near was intended to lead them towards full communion with God and his covenant family, the Church. As you suggest, it is obviously prudent to counsel a same-sex couple to cease cohabitating. I agree that the full fruit of the blessing requested by same-sex couples, irrespective of the fruit they might desire or expect, involves the end of any erotic or sexual relationship. But I disagree that their friendship, insofar as it is "good, true, and humanly valid" (per Fiducia Supplicans), needs to dissolve. On the contrary, such friendship needs to blossom into true Christian brotherhood. To this end, the blessing may be given, as the Declaration makes clear. I hope that helps. Again, thank you for your thoughtful question. God bless you! - Fr Andrew

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

Regarding your second question, some examples are helpful. If a father and son ask for a blessing, obviously, it can be imparted. But suppose these two people are also in an incestuous relationship. Surely, there is a real distinction between the familial relationship and the sexual one. Likewise, if a husband and wife ask for a blessing, it can be imparted ... even if these two people are in an abusive relationship. Obviously, there is a real distinction between the marital relationship and the abusive one. One may bless the father-son relationship and the husband-wife relationship insofar as these are good, true, and valid. They conform to God's will. But one cannot bless relationships which are intrinsically disordered. These do not conform to God's will. Insofar as a friendship is rightly ordered, it is blessable. Insofar as a sexual relationship is disordered, it is not blessable. - Fr Andrew

[@oriongoa]

Dear Father/s, I have a few questions that I hope you'll will make time to answer. 1) How many times in your entire priestly ministry have couples( normal or homosexual) requested you "Father , please give our union a blessing" rather than "Father please give us a blessing" 2) Whilst blessing the couple, on what basis are you going to distinguish the couple from the union?. 2) If such a couple were to request a blessing, what harm is there in blessing them individually? Do less graces flow from an individual blessing? Why the need to bless them jointly? 3) The Church teaches that a homosexual relationship of any kind is intrinsically evil. How many times have homosexual couples approached you for a blessing knowing that they eventually need to mandatorily end the relationship? 4) How many times can you grant a blessing to the same couple and for how long can they continue getting these blessings?. 5) Can these couples approach different priests and continue in their relationship indefinitely? 6) If God's Mercy and grace is invoked for the first blessing, does God's mercy run out for further blessings? 7) The declaration ( in para 25) prohibits the detailed moral examination of the couple. How will you be able to distinguish the moral disposition of the couple if you encounter any of the above cited instances?

[@AndrewLane-pm2ro]

"In [Fiducia Supplicans], there is the appearance of reason, but also a great deal of jargon, sophistry, and deceit ... to bless couples in irregular marriages or same-sex couples without giving the impression that the Church is not validating their sexual activity is a charade. All those present at such blessings know, without a doubt, that such relationships are sexual in nature. No one is fooled ... That’s the point of these blessings. It is not their sexual abstinence being blessed, but their sexual indulgence ... Although “On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings” may be well intended, it wreaks havoc on the very nature of blessings. Blessings are the Spirit-filled graces that the Father bestows upon his adopted children who abide in his Son, Jesus Christ, as well as upon those whom he desires to be so. Attempting immorally to exploit God’s blessings makes a mockery of his divine goodness and love." From "God’s Blessings and Magisterial Teaching" by Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM, theologian and former member of the Vatican’s International Theological Commission.

Thank you for this interesting insight that makes things even clearer.

[@steveempire4625]

Practically speaking, no irregular couple is going to ask for a blessing to give them the grace to repent, separate, and end the relationship. The relationship, itself, even if there was perfect chastity and friendship is still scandalous and sinful. The relationship must simply end to be in the clear. The tone of FS doesn't promote repentance and the Church doesn't seem to be taking mortal sins and hell very seriously these days. A blessing upon unrepentant scandalous sinners in groups is a bucket of water on an oil fire. It's not serious practically or theoretically. The vast majority of these blessings, on the ground, will be illicit, sacrilegious, and scandalous which will bring heat upon the entire Church. God will not be mocked. The use of "couples" rather than pairs or individuals within a relationship is a poor choice of words. The word couple can mean various things to different cultures and time periods. It has caused widespread confusion and division within the Church. Couples are also frequently used in Church documents to describe married unions and relationships. Legally, it may be legit but politically, it is a disastrous word choice. An act is moral if the intent, act, and consequences are positive. Here, the intent seems obvious in its downplaying of the seriousness of the sin and concessions to Germany. The intent is to reverse areas of the 2021 document's strong language by splitting liturgical and pastoral blessings to weaken its effect. The consequences have been totally disastrous and Church officials will be held accountable for these consequences even if the act, itself, is technically legal. Aside from the legality of the blessings, FS makes a lot of claims about how the irregular relationship will be affected by this blessing. These claims don't stand to scrutiny even if the blessing is licit and that's rather concerning. The blessing is not going to enrich the relationship in various ways and the goodness that can supposedly be found in these irregular relationships isn't going to exonerate the situation. So, not only must the blessing, itself, be defended but the claims about the Holy Spirit on these relationships must also be defended.

[@day1678]

When does one draw the line, Fathers. Sin is sin, regardless of how beautifully it is presented to the faithful. Do not underestimate the intelligence and cunningness of the devil: his smoke has infiltrated the very summit of the church. Why is this blessing required when blessings are available to one genuinely seeking help to extricate oneself from a sinful situation.

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

One may bless persons insofar as they are crying out for God's help. This blessing is permitted precisely because it is one instance of persons genuinely seeking help in extricating themselves from a sinful situation. - Fr Andrew

[@AgnelloAffonso-xp5gm]

WATCH A WOMAN RIDES TH BEAST by Dave Hunt ,book also,

[@j.a.b.7415]

Dear Fathers, You have studied philosophy and theology. You have a grave responsibility by virtue of your consecration to God, to Christ and His Church. Please, explain the difference between [1]. a blessing as paraliturgy, [2]. a blessing as one part of a liturgical ritual (for instance, the blessing of oil before aonoi ting when no consecrated oil is available, the blessing of a couple as one among more than two ritual steps within the LITURGY of the SACRAMENT of Matrimony, the blessing you received from the bishop who ordained you --being that only one minor part besides anointing of hands, imoosition of hands and prayer of consecration, your declaration of promises for life, etc), [3]. A CONSECRATION, as proper to Sacraments. Your "Yes and Yes; Yes and No" explanation leaves the People of God more confused than clarified. Please, answer / state: - Do you believe that the bread brought to the altar (most times in the form of a host) at Offertory time in a Mass are at the end of that Mass "blessed bread" or "the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity" of Christ, our LORD? - What is a LITURGICAL blessing? And in contrast: What is aLiturgical act of consecration? Is a coupled married in the Church a couple who have been blessed by a priest? Or is it --until the end of one of the spouses-- true and living Presence of Christ, a SACRAMENT which subsists ever since the celebration of the ritual Liturgy of that one SACRAMENT whereas a man and a woman begin to BE a sacrament --just as you became a SACRAMENT. (cf., Ontological change) after your ordination? With this "innovative conception" of a distinction between "liturgical blessings" and "pastoral blessings" don't you see that the Congregation for Sacred Doctrine (whose responsibility is to make doctrinal clarifications, rather than trigger, inititate, foster, and stimulate confusion) is perhaps "splitting hairs" on theological issues that require high theological sophistication, in the best case scenario; but, perhaps also, use very thinly solid theology in the worst case scenario (for the weight of this document, which has been promulgated as official magisterium of the Church)?

[@denisjackson4809]

I’m surprised at the negative comments that sound so judgemental. I found the three bright articulate priests did a fine job ! Well done !😇

[@bridgetdoyle5820]

what the document proposes is insidious in nature. This is not just my opinion but the opinion of Cardinals, bishops priest , theologian’s and Cannon lawyers, including Cardinal Gerhard Müller who has published a response to the controversial Vatican document Fiducia Supplicans (FS). For those of you don’t know Cardinal Müller held the same exact position as cardinal Fernandez, prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith( PDDF )who put out the resent FS document. What is being proposed is that there is going to be a new blessing which is not a blessing of the church or of a priest acting as a priest. It’s just a spontaneous blessing that is outside of the liturgical practices of a priest. The problem with that is the priest can never separate himself from Christ. He is the persona of Christ here on earth. Anything or anyone that the priest blesses would be blessed by Christ. So that in and of itself would be hypocrisy, and not possible . According to cardinal Müller “this would mean that he would not be acting as a priest. In fact, he would have to give these blessings not as a priest of Christ, but as one who has rejected Christ. In fact, by his actions, the priest who blesses these unions presents them as a path to the Creator. Therefore, he commits a sacrilegious and blasphemous act against the Creator’s plan and against Christ’s death for us, which meant to fulfill the Creator’s plan.” It is the upmost important that a priest only would do what Jesus would do. If a priest differs in his duties of In persona Christi he has made a mockery of Christ and mockery of the priesthood and himself. The only form of spontaneous duty that HE, the priest, should be doing for a couple is praying for them. Blessings can only be invoked with certain conditions. Blessings are always under the condition that the person is open to God’s will ! This misleadingly is stated in the FS document as a sort of absolution for the “sin of which this insidious document is about to present”. Müller emphasises blessings contemplated by the Roman Ritual are only possible over “things, places, or circumstances that do not contradict the law or the spirit of the Gospel” (FS 10, quoting the Prayers can always be invoked. ) You can’t always have a blessing but you can always pray. When a priest blesses someone it is giving a guarantee of God’s blessing especially in the liturgical and Sacramental form i.e. the only form. He argues blessings “invokes the descent of God’s gifts upon the relationship itself.” This is the only form that is currently still Catholic Church doctrine. For he points out that “The document, which was neither discussed nor approved by the General Assembly of Cardinals and Bishops of this Dicastery, acknowledges that the hypothesis (or teaching?) it proposes is new and that it is based primarily on the pastoral magisterium of Pope Francis.”.

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

Thank you for your kind words!

[@bridgetdoyle5820]

@@ThoseTwoPriests Part 1 The Only Blessing of Mother Church is the Truth That Will Set Us Free. Note on the Declaration Fiducia supplicans Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller With the Declaration Fiducia supplicans (FS) on the Pastoral Significance of Blessings, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) has made an affirmation that has no precedent in the teaching of the Catholic Church. In fact, this document affirms that it is possible for a priest to bless (not liturgically, but privately) couples who live in a sexual relationship outside of marriage, including same-sex couples. The many questions raised by bishops, priests, and laity in response to these statements deserve a clear and unequivocal response. Does this statement not clearly contradict Catholic teaching? Are the faithful obliged to accept this new teaching? May the priest perform such new practices that have just been invented? And can the diocesan bishop forbid them if they were to take place in his diocese? To answer these questions, let us see what exactly the document teaches and what arguments it relies on. The document, which was neither discussed nor approved by the General Assembly of Cardinals and Bishops of this Dicastery, acknowledges that the hypothesis (or teaching?) it proposes is new and that it is based primarily on the pastoral magisterium of Pope Francis. According to the Catholic faith, the pope and the bishops can set certain pastoral accents and creatively relate the truth of Revelation to the new challenges of each age, as for example in the field of social doctrine or of bioethics, while respecting the fundamental principles of Christian anthropology. But these innovations cannot go beyond what was revealed to them once and for all by the apostles as the word of God (Dei verbum 8). In fact, there are no biblical texts or texts of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church or previous documents of the magisterium to support the conclusions of FS. Moreover, what we see is not a development but a doctrinal leap. For one can speak of a doctrinal development only if the new explanation is contained, at least implicitly, in Revelation and, above all, does not contradict the dogmatic definitions. And a doctrinal development that reaches a deeper meaning of the doctrine must have occurred gradually, through a long period of maturation. In point of fact, the last magisterial pronouncement on this matter was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a responsum published in March 2021, less than three years ago, and it categorically rejected the possibility of blessing these unions. This applies both to public blessings and to private blessings for people living in sinful conditions. How does FS justify proposing a new doctrine without contradicting the previous 2021 document? First of all, FS recognizes that both the CDF Responsum of 2021 and the traditional, valid, and binding teaching on blessings do not permit blessings in situations that are contrary to God’s law, as in the case of sexual unions outside of marriage. This is clear for the sacraments, but also for other blessings which FS calls “liturgical.” These “liturgical” blessings belong to what the Church has called “sacramentals,” as witnessed by the Rituale Romanum. In these two types of blessings, there must be an agreement between the blessing and the Church’s teaching (FS 9-11). Therefore, in order to accept the blessing of situations that are contrary to the Gospel, the DDF proposes an original solution: to broaden the concept of a blessing (FS 7; FS 12). This is justified as follows: “One must also avoid the risk of reducing the meaning of blessings to this point of view alone [i.e., to the ‘liturgical’ blessings of the sacraments and sacramentals], for it would lead us to expect the same moral conditions for a simple blessing that are called for in the reception of the sacraments” (FS 12). That is, a new concept of blessing is needed, one that goes beyond sacramental blessings in order to accompany pastorally the journey of those who live in sin.

[@bridgetdoyle5820]

@@ThoseTwoPriests Now, in reality, this extension beyond the sacraments already takes place through the other blessings approved in the Rituale Romanum. The Church does not require the same moral conditions for a blessing as for receiving a sacrament. This happens, for example, in the case of a penitent who does not want to abandon a sinful situation, but who can humbly ask for a personal blessing so that the Lord may give him light and strength to understand and follow the teachings of the Gospel. This case does not require a new kind of “pastoral” blessing. Why, then, is it necessary to broaden the meaning of “blessing,” if the blessing as understood in the Roman Ritual already goes beyond the blessing given in a sacrament? The reason is that blessings contemplated by the Roman Ritual are only possible over “things, places, or circumstances that do not contradict the law or the spirit of the Gospel” (FS 10, quoting the Roman Ritual). And this is the point that the DDF wants to overcome, since it wants to bless couples in circumstances, such as same-sex relationships, that contradict the law and the spirit of the Gospel. It is true that the Church can add “new sacramentals” to existing ones (Vatican II: Sacrosanctum Concilium 79), but she cannot change their meaning in such a way as to trivialize sin, especially in an ideologically charged cultural situation that also misleads the faithful. And this change of meaning is precisely what happens in FS, which invents a new category of blessings beyond those associated with either a sacrament or a blessing as the Church has understood them. FS says that these are non-liturgical blessings that belong to popular piety. So there would be three kinds of blessings: a) Prayers associated with the sacraments, asking that the person be in the proper state to receive the sacraments, or asking that the person receive the strength to turn from sin. b) Blessings, as contained in the Roman Ritual and as Catholic doctrine has always understood them, which can be addressed to persons, even if they live in sin, but not to “things, places, or circumstances that … contradict the law or the spirit of the Gospel” (FS 10, quoting the Roman Ritual). Thus, for example, a woman who has had an abortion could be blessed, but not an abortion clinic. c) The new blessings proposed by FS would be pastoral blessings, not liturgical or ritual blessings. Therefore, they would no longer have the limitation of “ritual” or type “b” blessings. They could be applied not only to persons in sin, as in “ritual” blessings, but also to things, places, or circumstances that are contrary to the Gospel. These “c” type blessings, or “pastoral” blessings are a novelty. Not being liturgical but rather of “popular piety,” they would supposedly not compromise evangelical doctrine and would not have to be consistent with either moral norms or Catholic doctrine. What can be said about this new category of blessing?

[@bridgetdoyle5820]

@@ThoseTwoPriests A first observation is that there is no basis for this new usage in the biblical texts cited by FS, nor in any previous statement of the Magisterium. Nor do the texts offered by Pope Francis provide a basis for this new type of blessing. For already the blessing according to the Roman Ritual (type “b”) allows a priest to bless someone who lives in sin. And this type “of blessing can easily be applied to someone who is in prison or in a rehabilitation group, as Francis says (quoted in FS 27). The innovative “pastoral” blessing (type “c”), in contrast, goes beyond what Francis says, because one could give such a blessing to a reality that is contrary to God’s law, such as an extramarital relationship. In fact, according to the criterion of this type of blessing, one could even bless an abortion clinic or a mafia group. This leads to a second observation: it is hazardous to invent new terms that go against the traditional usage of language. Such procedure can give rise to arbitrary exercises of power. In the case at hand, the fact is that a blessing has an objective reality of its own and thus cannot be redefined at will to fit a subjective intention that is contrary to the nature of a blessing. Here Humpty Dumpty’s famous line from Alice in Wonderland comes to mind: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” Alice replies, “The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.” And Humpty Dumpty says: “The question is which is to be master; that’s all.” The third observation relates to the very concept of a “non-liturgical blessing” which is not intended to sanction anything (FS 34), that is, a “pastoral” blessing (type “c”). How does it differ from the blessing contemplated by the Roman Ritual (type “b”)? The difference is not in the spontaneous nature of the blessing, which is already possible in type “b” blessings, since they do not need to be regulated or approved in the Roman Ritual. Nor is the difference in popular piety, since the blessings according to the Roman Ritual are already adapted to popular piety, which asks for the blessing of objects, places, and people. It seems that the innovative “pastoral” blessing is created ad hoc to bless situations that are contrary to the law or spirit of the gospel. This brings us to a fourth observation concerning the object of this “pastoral” blessing, which distinguishes it from a “ritual” blessing of the Roman Ritual. A “pastoral” blessing can include situations that are contrary to the Gospel. Notice that not only sinful persons are blessed here, but that by blessing the couple, it is the sinful relationship itself that is blessed. Now, God cannot send His grace upon a relationship that is directly opposed to him and cannot be ordered toward him. Sexual intercourse outside of marriage, qua sexual intercourse, cannot bring people closer to God and therefore cannot open itself to God’s blessing. Therefore, if this blessing were given, its only effect would be to confuse the people who receive it or who attend it. They would think that God has blessed what He cannot bless. This “pastoral” blessing would be neither pastoral nor a blessing. It is true that Cardinal Fernandez, in later statements to Infovaticana, said that it is not the union that is blessed, but the couple. However, this is emptying a word of its meaning, since what defines a couple as couple is precisely their being a union. The difficulty of blessing a union or couple is especially evident in the case of homosexuality. For in the Bible, a blessing has to do with the order that God has created and that He has declared to be good. This order is based on the sexual difference of male and female, called to be one flesh. Blessing a reality that is contrary to creation is not only impossible, it is blasphemy. Once again, it is not a question of blessing persons who “live in a union that cannot be compared in any way to marriage” (FS, n. 30), but of blessing the very union that cannot be compared to marriage. It is precisely for this purpose that a new kind of blessing is created (FS 7, 12). Several arguments appear in the text that attempt to justify these blessings. First, the possibility of conditions that reduce the imputability of the sinner. However, these conditions refer to the person, not to the relationship itself. It is also said that asking for the blessing is the possible good that these persons can realize in their present conditions, as if asking for a blessing already constituted an opening to God and to conversion. This may be true for those who ask for a blessing for themselves, but not for those who ask for a blessing as a couple. The latter, in asking for a blessing, implicitly or explicitly seek to justify their relationship itself before God, without realizing that it is precisely their relationship that distances them from God. Finally, it is claimed that there are positive elements in the relationship and that these can be blessed, but these positive elements (for example, that one helps the other in an illness) are secondary to the relationship itself-whose defining characteristic is the sharing of sexual activity-and these elements do not change the nature of this relationship, which in no case can be directed towards God, as already noted in the 2021 Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Even in an abortion clinic there are positive elements, from the anesthesiologists who prevent physical pain, to the desire of the doctors to protect the life project of the woman who is having an abortion.

[@AndrewLane-pm2ro]

The Responsum is clear regarding the blessing of human 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. . . . For this reason, it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage . . . as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex.

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

That's right. Note the use of the term 'relationship' throughout, not 'couple.' Insofar as the same-sex relationship is intrinsically disordered, it cannot be blessed. Insofar as the persons in a same-sex relationship are rightly ordered, they can be blessed. We must not conflate the relationship with the persons in a relationship. For the union (bond) is not the same as that which is united (viz., the persons who together form a couple). The couple results from the bond, but the couple is not the bond. Similarly, a sinner results from sin, but the sinner is not the sin. Sinners may be blessed, though not qua sinners. Same-sex couples may be blessed, but not qua same-sex couples. The couple is really (metaphysically) distinct from the union. Metaphysically, the relationship is not a substance; it is an accident which inheres in a substance (a person). With magisterial authority, the Declaration declares that same-sex couples (i.e., persons) who cry out to God for help in living faithfully may indeed be blessed. The Church requires that Catholics offer religious submission of intellect and will to this normative teaching. Otherwise, we set ourselves up as the arbiters of orthodoxy and orthopraxis over and against the organ God endowed with authority for this purpose. Such protestation is the essence of the Protestant error. Hope that helps. God bless you! -Fr Andrew

[@jeannenollen4492]

We need to FOCUS on the "Sacraments" and their True Purpose - to "ENABLE" us to be saved by God's Grace. We need to say YES to "His" Grace! We need to focus on con-version on all levels - sexual and faith-based. Same-sex attraction is the wrong "version" of Life. I hear so often, we have to be careful not to "offend" an individual. What about offending God? Same-sex attraction is a MORTAL sin. That verbiage is rarely mentioned in ANY discussion, esp. on public platforms. Rarely, if ever, discussed from the Pulpit nowadays. We know why that is in this Pontificate, don't we! It is imperative for "parishioners" to be outspoken about the Deposit of Faith and be prepared to Defend it on ALL levels. The Pope can't cancel us! God 1st always!

[@stephennkoka9959]

Fear of the Lord is beginning of knowledge. Do not mislead people. The people should repent. Later, the people ask for blessings towards conversion. Finally, they should receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savoir. What is the difference between a Couple and a Union? Do not sugar coat the sin. Is your analysis in line with the Bible?

[@aloysiusezeonyeka6472]

You are right. But it also shows that you didn't read the document, which clearly states the three conditions that seekers of blessing should possess, including 1) they are seeking God's mercy, 2) help and 3) guidance toward an understanding of God's plan of love and truth. Take the time to read with humility, love and obedience. Then your heart will be opened to understanding.

[@xtusvincit5230]

My priests blessing for gay couples: May Almighty God grant you the grace of chaste celibacy in accord with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, + the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

Wonderful. And perfectly consonant with Fiducia Supplicans!

[@enzos6743]

Listen to Bishop Vigano he is. the only one speaking the truth, hopefully if people see this in their church they will all walk out. Ok so why are priests that molested children are still priests if you can't bless sin hopefully people understand what im trying to say

[@jeannenollen4492]

This questionable document was not submitted to the Dicastery for evaluation, as is required before release. There are so many errors in the whole "procedure" and Religious are attempting to 'dismiss" the facts. It does appear that confusion is being "blessed" on so many levels, clear up to the top. God gave us 10 COMMANDMENTS out of love. They were not recommendations. They are not confusing on ANY level.

[@aloysiusezeonyeka6472]

Welcome to ministering to sinners. It requires doing things that may confuse the religiosity of some people as it did to the pharisees in the case of Jesus' public ministries and utterances.

[@user-gu1jk4qn6b]

The woman at the well tells us what we need to know. "Go, and sin no more". Jesus' own words. Impossible to take it out of context. I understand that many are confused. Blessing sin, any sin, would be impossible. God is all Good. It is impossible for the church to bless that which is sinful. Anyone who tries to muddy the waters, especially priests, will cause others to fall.

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

Peace of Christ! Indeed, the Church cannot bless sin. This is our position too. By the way, you might be accidentally conflating the woman at the well (John 5) and the woman caught in adultery (John 8). As you suggest, Jesus calls sinners to repentance. Of course, even prior to repentance, he also blesses sinners by drawing near to them, so that in this way they may be prompted to seek salvation in him wholeheartedly.

[@user-gu1jk4qn6b]

@@ThoseTwoPriests You're right! My brain is getting old, and fentanyl patches probably don't help much. Thank you for the correction, and God Bless you.

[@jeannenollen4492]

Father, I agree with you. This sad document does HARM-onize. It creates confusion and sets up individuals and select couples to be spiritually harmed. Practicing Catholics are very aware of that problem. It was no accident that this particular document was so poorly composed. It is very obvious when reading this document, as many of us have, that the titles of the paragraphs are misleading and conflict with the details. Sadly, I'm not a Theologian, but I am an educated individual and I attempt to be a practicing Catholic. I will not defend ambiguity on any level. I would be held accountable to God.

[@omega36001]

As long as money is involved in man clubs, we will be dancing with the devil. Did Jesus dance with the devils (pharisees, etc?). HE CALLED THEM OUT AND DIDN'T ASK FOR THEIR MONEY FOR ANY MANCLUB. "I never condoned manclubs (denominations) and I never will..." - GOD

[@jeannenollen4492]

Fathers, why don't you just invite these confused individuals to go to Confession. Con-fession dispels con-fusion. You can have an open, honest and private discussion about everything without embarrassment or "compromise". Padre Pio did not mince words and he did not deny the faith for anyone. Isn't that the purpose of Confession? After an honest, 'repentive' confession, we always get a blessing. So, the debate is not about the blessing at all. It's about the "procedure" that needs to be followed by "God's" design!

[@Llyrin]

I compared this to Christ, when he admonished Mary Magdalene to, “Go and sin no more.” He blessed her, but not her prostitution.

[@anthonythomas1504]

The point is she sinned no more.

[@johnnymism]

But he never blessed a same sex couple together and then said I'm not blessing their union but I'm blessing this couple, this is a complete mess.

[@Llyrin]

@@anthonythomas1504 that is not the point. That is what she did with HER life. And what gay couples do with the rest of theirs is up to them.

[@Llyrin]

@@johnnymism I’m pretty sure same-sex couples were not seen in Israel at that time.

[@martinospitaletta8198]

Is anybody here imagining Jesus blessing unconverted Maria Magdalena and her customer while Peter declaring only the persons are blessed but not the prostitution???!😅😅😮

[@TheSound0fLegends]

Is it in line with God's teaching in scripture? Bless the sinner not the union with sin. I fixed your title for you. ✝️

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

Right! Perhaps better: bless sinners, but not their sinful union.

[@jimw5142]

I think it is great. I repented of Homosexuality years ago because the bible calls it an abomination in the eyes of God. Im so happy that i now can go back to this lifestyle and be blessed still . Thank you Pope Francis.

[@gregorybrown4664]

Hoping this is just satire to make a point...

[@mariawong1349]

What is the need to put out a new document that is easily taken at face meaning by secular world and anti-Christian activists who can’t wait to make a statement? Confusion and chaos !

[@pollyester6639]

So two gays ask to be blessed in church together. I’d say that’s interpreted as the church bending and in the eyes of the world and the receiving couple it’s a blessing. How naive. Will they be blessed seoeratley or together. No body asks for a friendship to be blessed, a father and daughter don’t. I feel these preists are gas lighting. Priest on the left has been converted, when I here flowery language such as elevate, lived experience, authentic. Sorry Guys this is my first time here and I can see this wish washy interpretation is not for me. Don’t get me wrong I have a gay brother in law who is “married” and who I love and who God loves but no this is bending. You believe this is the way home but the devil walks in soft soled shoes and no gay guy will change their lifestyle. Blessing a gay person is fine but not the couple and two persons on an alter is a couple. And what’s this statement about doing it in private, it just gets worse. Welcome of course, show gods love of course but this is the thin end of the wedge.

[@Ihs137]

His plan is for them to repent and sin no more!!

[@joepugh678]

What exactly is the alternative? Tell the whole world to agree with the Church about everything or they're going to Hell? I'm glad not all Catholics are like that.

[@AndrewLane-pm2ro]

A same-sex couple is not in a same-sex relationship? What? The Pope cannot err when making an ex cathedra declaration concerning faith and morals. That means it's possible for the Pope to err when not making an ex cathedra declaration - Fiducia Supplicans is a case in point. You're trying to whitewash a sinful Declaration that not only approves the blessing of same-sex relationships, it directs priests to sin by blessing same-sex relationships.

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

We agree that ex cathedra teaching is definitive and thus protected from error. We also agree that teaching of the ordinary Magisterium is not protected from error. But the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium is nevertheless still guided by a charism of divine assistance and thus demands the religious submission of intellect and will. Faithful Catholics cannot dissent from the ordinary Magisterium. Those who have dissented need to repent. Friend, I hope you'll reconsider your mistake. But you misrepresent the Declaration by saying it "directs priests to sin by blessing same-sex relationships." First, it permits, not directs. Second, it permits the blessing of same-sex couples, not same-sex relationships. Third, far from being sinful, it's good to bless those with the dispositions set by FS. But, beyond these errors, you are making yourself out to be the arbiter of orthodoxy and orthopraxis over and against the Magisterium, which is the organ actually endowed with the authority to do these things. I'm sorry to say it, but this is a Protestant disposition. It has no place amongst faithful Catholics. -Fr Andrew

[@AndrewLane-pm2ro]

The CCC (#2358) says homosexual inclinations are "objectively disordered". That being so, it follows that any kind of homosexual relationship is "objectively disordered". Pretty simple logic. FS authorises "the blessing ... of same-sex couples" (#31). A "same-sex couple" is obviously in a same-sex relationship, thus Fiducia Supplicans authorises the blessing of same-sex relationships. (Simple logic that even a child could understand - hardly a strawman or a logical fallacy.) Furthermore, the Declaration speaks of "all that is true, good, and humanly valid" (#31) in reference to a relationship that the Church teaches is "objectively disordered" (CCC #2358). Hilarious! The Declaration (#11) states that "the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit", but then goes on to approve the blessing of same-sex couples!! Is it possible to make sense of that? FS says nothing at all about ending a same-sex relationship. Perish the thought! That would defeat the whole purpose of the Declaration, which is obviously to make same-sex couples officially acceptable in the Church. The errors of Fiducia Supplicans don't contradict the Church's doctrine of Papal Infallibility, since the Declaration doesn't qualify as ex cathedra. Hopefully, the next Pope will rescind and remove this shameful stain on the Church.

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

You write: “FS authorises ‘the blessing ... of same-sex couples’ (#31). A ‘same-sex couple’ is obviously in a same-sex relationship, thus Fiducia Supplicans authorises the blessing of same-sex relationships.” This is non-sequitur: the premises are true, but the conclusion does not follow. To see how so, apply the same reasoning to a parallel case: “The Church authorizes the blessing of sinners. A sinner is in a relationship of solidarity with sin. Thus, the Church authorizes the blessing of solidarity with sin.” But this conclusion is patently absurd. We may bless sinners, but not sin. Likewise, we may bless same-sex couples, but not homosexual unions or relationships. ___ You write, “The Declaration (#11) states that ‘the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit’, but then goes on to approve the blessing of same-sex couples!! Is it possible to make sense of that?” Yes. Morally illicit behavior cannot be blessed. But those who have engaged in morally illicit behavior can be blessed … precisely because the blessing “disposes man’s heart to be changed by God” (FS 27). ___ You write, “the Declaration speaks of ‘all that is true, good, and humanly valid’ (#31) in reference to a relationship that the Church teaches is ‘objectively disordered’ (CCC #2358).” The assumption that “all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships” (31) refers to the “objectively disordered” homosexual relationship is both gratuitous and illogical. The text is perfectly intelligible without this strained interpretation. ___ You write, “FS says nothing at all about ending a same-sex relationship. Perish the thought! That would defeat the whole purpose of the Declaration, which is obviously to make same-sex couples officially acceptable in the Church.” This interpretation is unnecessary and uncharitable. You are attributing ill intent to the author, irrespective of his actual words. ___ You write, “The errors of Fiducia Supplicans don't contradict the Church's doctrine of Papal Infallibility, since the Declaration doesn't qualify as ex cathedra. Hopefully, the next Pope will rescind and remove this shameful stain on the Church.” Please be careful, brother. Even if not spoken ex cathedra, the affirmations of Fiducia Supplicans still constitute official teaching of the ordinary magisterium. Forming part of the deposit of faith, it demands the religious submission of intellect and will (cf. Lumen Gentium 25). Besides, even if the affirmations of the document were rescinded, one could never undo the fact of this official promulgation by the Magisterium. If in error once, then there is no reason the Magisterium could not be in error again. By stripping the Magisterium of authority, you destroy the conditions of possibility for the very notion of orthodoxy. In other words, if you show yourself to be right in this matter, then you lose more than you gain.

[@kimthames2531]

Foolishness here.

[@kimthames2531]

Can we have some common spiritual sense? Don't bless homosexual couples. It's a no-brainer. But hear the priests go: how high do you want me to jump master.

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

To follow one's one common sense over and against magisterial teaching is the error of Protestantism. To give religious submission of intellect and will to magisterial teaching is the virtue of fidelity. - Fr Andrew

[@domniclacour5701]

Am I reading this conversation wrong? Are these priests still thinking of what their oath represents? They either agree with the devilish pope or they oppose this insanity. This is why the believers are so confused

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

As a priest-professor of theology at a pontifical university in Rome, I am keenly aware of my oath to give religious submission of my intellect and will to all magisterial teaching. In keeping with this oath, I embrace Fiducia Supplicans and read it within a hermeneutic of reform in continuity. -Fr Andrew

[@Patriots888]

Liberal pope

[@javierballesterosdeleon3143]

What a pity to hear such a shallow analysis from the Legion of Christ. You camt separate a couple from what unites them, and that is their sodomitic relation. By unconditionally supporting Tucho you are betraying the truth.

[@aloysiusezeonyeka6472]

I am very sure you didn't read the document because it begins by affirming a previous document to rejected the blessings of sin. And it NEVER affirmed in any shape of form the same-sex union, but asks priests to bless those couples who come seeking for 1) God's mercy, 2) help, and 3) guidance towards the understanding of God's plan of love and truth. Humility is such a powerful virtue. Blessings my brother.

[@saints51]

How is the blessing of gay couples in line with Church teaching? Why should it be embraced? The Fiducia affirms the teaching that gays can't be married. Whoop-de-do! Your attempt at hair-splitting --- blessing the couple vs. blessing the union -- fails. Paragraph 5 of Fiducia says a union can't be blessed, but a couple IS a union, IS a relationship, IS a partnership. These blessings are ruled out by the Responsum of 2021. Playing with words (especially as poorly as you do) can't make the error of Fiducia go away. It allows the blessing of gay couples, unions, relationships, and partnerships. You three should examine whether you belong in the priesthood.

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

It's a mistake to confuse the bond from that which is bound. Imagine two postcards stapled together, where the staple represents the bond or union, and the postcards represents the persons. A union is a bond or relationship that a person may or may not have. Metaphysically, it is not a substance, but an accident which inheres in the substance. A couple, however, is two persons who have a relationship. The couple results from the union. But the couple is not the union. Hope that helps. God bless you! -Fr Andrew

[@saints51]

@@ThoseTwoPriests You say a union or relationship is an accident rather than a substance. Question: In what substance does a union inhere? Second: A couple does not merely RESULT FROM a union; it IS a union (especially in the context under discussion). So says the world's most authoritative dictionary, the OED, which says: "Couple" IS "the union of two things." Third: Of what relevance is it that a union is merely an accident (assuming that your substance vs. accident argument is valid)? In the case of a gay union, its being an accident doesn't mean there's no valid prohibition on its being blessed. On the contrary, the Responsum of 2021 says there can be no blessing of a gay union. Why, then, should a gay couple have any greater claim to being worthy of a blessing than a gay union? Fourth: Let's assume that, as you say, the staple in your analogy is analogous to the bond or relationship between two persons in a gay relationship. The Fiducia (FS) allows the blessing of the staple --- the COUPLE. And when the relationship is a gay relationship, blessing it is directly contrary to the Responsum of 2021. Fifth: Nowhere does FS say that it is the PERSONS in the gay relationship, as opposed to the gay COUPLE itself, that may be blessed. On the contrary, paragraph 31 of the FS expressly contemplates blessing the "couple." To be more specific: FS discusses "the possibility of blessings . . . for COUPLES of the same sex," and goes on to say such blessings are permissible provided they do not give the appearance of a formal ritual that could cause "confusion." Face it guys. FS was written by a second-rate thinker who would have never cut it as a top-rate Jesuit, which is what it would have taken to write a credible FS. FS needs to be retracted and Fernandez fired. And Francis needs to swear off Jesuitical arguments.

[@domniclacour5701]

load of ......SIN IS SIN BLESSING TO REPENT NOT CONDONING SIN

[@ThoseTwoPriests]

You're right to understand that the blessing is ordered to disposing man's heart to be changed by God, that is, to repent of sin, not to condone sin. The Declaration itself speaks to this dynamic (cf. FS 27).

[@bja2477]

Nice try but no cigar! You can parse all the subtleties you like but Jesuitical casuistry is not Christianity