Vatican approves blessings for same-sex couples in landmark ruling

[Smiley McGee]

Article link here: Link

Calling all resident Catholics here. I understand that "blessing" in this context is not marriage. What does this mean in practice? Is this as much of a landmark as new outlets are reporting?

 

Edited December 18, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[mfbukowski]

Since Catholics are used to repeating approved written prayers, I would not be surprised if there will be a published prayer, carefully worded, to clarify exactly what is approved.

Note this, imagining a re-written appropriate version of the ceremony 

https://www.catholicweddinghelp.com/topics/catholic-wedding-vows.htm#:~:text=the following form%3A-,Groom%3A I%2C (name)%2C take you%2C (,until death do us part.&text=from this day-,forward%2C for better%2C for worse%2C for richer%2C for,until death do us part.

It might be based on this reasoning:

"You may be wondering whether you can write your own Catholic wedding vows. Because The Order of Celebrating Matrimony does not provide an option for couples to write their own vows, it is unlikely that the priest or deacon who assists at your wedding will allow you to do so. Find out why by reading "Can we write our own Catholic wedding vows?" One option for couples who want to publicly express their love in their own words would be to include a personal statement in the printed wedding program. Another possibility: exchange a profession of love during the reception."

 

Edited December 18, 2023 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

Article link here: Link

Calling all resident Catholics here. I understand that "blessing" in this context is not marriage. What does this mean in practice? Is this as much of a landmark as new outlets are reporting?

 

Pope Francis approves blessings for same-sex couples | AP News

This article gets into a good amount of detail concerning the doctrinal basis for marriage, blessing people in a state of sin due to irregular extramarital unions, and the proscriptions surrounding the blessings.

[Stormin' Mormon]

From a summary I just read at National Review:

Quote

 

Many conscientious Catholics, believing that that the pope has no authority to authorize blessings of same-sex couples, point to the text, which makes a number of distinctions. Priests aren’t to bless same-sex couples as part of the liturgy of the Church, or any rite of the Church. They aren’t to perform these blessings while wearing any vestments or in a context suggestive of a wedding. The statement affirms that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that the Church has no authority to change this. And as you go further and further down, it suggests that such blessings aren’t of the union itself, but of the two individuals, whose request for a blessing should be treated as a sincere openess to God’s grace, wherever they are in the journey of life.

In other words, conscientious Catholics can look at the document and say, “It doesn’t say what the headlines says it says. It says that two individuals can be blessed, but not as a couple.

 

If this summary is accurate, this seems like a very limited and narrow allowance.  

[JustAnAustralian]

Pope Francis has been very clear on what the RCC doctrine of marriage is. To me this is just an extension of his earlier comments that gay couples should be welcome at church.

Although not relating to blessings, we have something similar about ring exchanges not replicating marriage ceremonies in our handbook.

 

 

Quote

 

27.3.2.7

Exchanging Rings after a Temple Marriage or Sealing
Exchanging rings is not part of the temple sealing ceremony. However, couples may exchange rings after the ceremony in the sealing room. Couples should not exchange rings at any other time or place in a temple or on temple grounds. Doing so can detract from the ceremony.

Couples who are married and sealed in the same ceremony may exchange rings at a later time to accommodate family members who are unable to attend a temple marriage. The ring exchange should be consistent with the dignity of a temple marriage. The exchange should not replicate any part of the temple marriage or sealing ceremony. The couple should not exchange vows after being married or sealed in the temple.

Couples who are married civilly before their temple sealing may exchange rings at their civil ceremony, at their temple sealing, or at both ceremonies.

 

 

[telnetd]

19 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Although not relating to blessings, we have something similar about ring exchanges not replicating marriage ceremonies in our handbook.

Whereabouts?

[JustAnAustralian]

1 minute ago, telnetd said:

Whereabouts

27.3.2.7 

I included the section as a quote in my post

[Saint Bonaventure]

23 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

Article link here: Link

Calling all resident Catholics here. I understand that "blessing" in this context is not marriage. What does this mean in practice? Is this as much of a landmark as new outlets are reporting?

 

I am going to say that it is not as much of a landmark as news outlets are reporting. I am on the traditional side of the Catholic spectrum, and I don't have a problem with this document.

The USCCB's comments, and a link to an English translation of the document, are here:

Statement of USCCB on Vatican’s Document Addressing Pastoral Blessings | USCCB

Catholic doctrine hasn't changed, the catechism hasn't been changed, the pope isn't speaking infallibly, and the Catholic Church is not sacramentalizing same-sex relationships.

Journalists are not well equipped to parse these kinds of documents; lawyers and academics are going to be the better readers here. Here's the paragraph that is most crucial, I think: 

Quote

31. Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex, the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage. In such cases, a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit. These forms of blessing express a supplication that God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his Spirit—what classical theology calls “actual grace”—so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love.

What has been put forward is that a priest could give a pastoral blessing to LGBTQ+ persons, to persons who are outside of sacramental marriage (divorcees, divorcees who remarried outside the church, people shacking up) and to others. A pastoral blessing is not given as part of Mass, or as a part of any of the seven sacraments (of which marriage between a man and a woman is one, and which is affirmed in this document). If you imagine a priest going to the home of LGBTQ persons and blessing "all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships," which is not, by definition, the sin in their lives, then you're on the right track. This is not unlike an LDS bishop visiting LGBTQ+ members of the ward and giving them a blessing of love, guidance, comfort, and encouragement. It is not like saying, in LDS terms, that those persons can now be married in the Temple, which is what some news outlets and commentators are trying to make it out to be.  

Some progressive Catholics are encouraging the misinterpretation in the hope that this is a step toward sacramentalization. A few priests are likely to go beyond the guardrails that are clearly in this document.

Some far-right Catholics are seeing it the same way, and have blinders on when it comes to Pope Francis. There's talk of crafty Jesuits and so on--I don't like talk of that sort. 

To me, this seems like a Christ-like thing to do, although I am concerned it could be exploited. 

[Saint Bonaventure]

A helpful article from Catholic News Agency:

U.S. dioceses respond to Vatican declaration on same-sex couple blessings | Catholic News Agency

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

What has been put forward is that a priest could give a pastoral blessing to LGBTQ+ persons, to persons who are outside of sacramental marriage (divorcees, divorcees who remarried outside the church, people shacking up) and to others. A pastoral blessing is not given as part of Mass, or as a part of any of the seven sacraments (of which marriage between a man and a woman is one, and which is affirmed in this document). If you imagine a priest going to the home of LGBTQ persons and blessing "all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships," which is not, by definition, the sin in their lives, then you're on the right track. This is not unlike an LDS bishop visiting LGBTQ+ members of the ward and giving them a blessing of love, guidance, comfort, and encouragement. It is not like saying, in LDS terms, that those persons can now be married in the Temple, which is what some news outlets and commentators are trying to make it out to be.  

Some progressive Catholics are encouraging the misinterpretation in the hope that this is a step toward sacramentalization.

You appear to be correct on this point.  See here: LGBT Catholics: Vatican Opening to Gay Blessings a ‘Huge Step Forward’

Quote

ROME — Pro-LGBT Catholics like Jesuit Father James Martin have lauded the Vatican’s allowance of blessings for gay couples as “a huge step forward.”

Monday’s Vatican declaration “will long be remembered by LGBTQ people,” writes Father Martin, since it “opens the door, for the first time, for the official blessings of same-sex couples by ministers of the church.”

In his essay, Father Martin addresses and corrects the impression by some well-meaning Catholics that “nothing has changed.”

“But a great deal has in fact changed,” the priest notes. “Before this document was issued, there was no permission for bishops, priests and deacons to bless couples in same-sex unions in any setting. This document establishes, with some limitations, that they can.”

While these blessings were already widespread in German-speaking countries, Martin notes, the change here is “that these blessings are now officially sanctioned by the Vatican.”

“Today, with some limitations, I can perform a public blessing of a same-sex couple. Yesterday, I could not,” he concludes.

He does not seem to be explicitly situating this as "a step toward sacramentalization," but he sure seems enthusiastic about it.

Quote

For his part, Francis DeBernardo, executive director of the dissident “Catholic” LGBT group New Ways Ministry, also recognized the tectonic shift in the Vatican’s move, calling the Declaration “an early Christmas gift” for LGBT Catholics.

“Pope Francis gave LGBTQ+ Catholics an early Christmas gift this year by approving blessings for same-gender couples,” DeBernardo writes.

“The Vatican doctrinal office’s previous claim that ‘God does not bless sin’ has been uprooted by the new exhortation, ‘God never turns away anyone who approaches him!’” he adds.

The bit about a "tectonic shift" is apparently a bit of editorializing by the news outlet.  It's not something Mr. DeBernardo said.

Quote

Cardinal Víctor Manuel “Tucho” Fernández, head of the Vatican’s doctrinal office, has in fact proclaimed that the Vatican’s new position regarding blessing gay couples constitutes “a real development.”

Cardinal Fernández said that blessings on gay couples should not be seen as “officially validating their status,” but it hard to imagine that it will not indeed be seen as validating their status, even if not “officially.”

More editorializing by the news outlet.

Quote

As Franciscan Father Thomas Weinandy, a prominent American theologian and the former head of the doctrinal office of the U.S. Bishops Conference, has observed, everyone rightly understands a blessing as an affirmation of what is being blessed.

To bless same-sex couples without giving the impression that the Church is validating their sexual activity is “a charade,” Weinandy writes.  “All those present at such blessings know, without a doubt, that such relationships are sexual in nature. No one is fooled.”

“Actually, they are rejoicing that such sexual relations are being blessed. That’s the point of these blessings,” he adds. “It is not their sexual abstinence being blessed, but their sexual indulgence.”

This is why until now the Vatican has prohibited such blessings, since such a structurally sinful relationship is “unblessable.”

In its 2021 statement on the matter, the Vatican’s doctrinal office (CDF) declared that the Church has no authority to bless homosexual unions, since God Himself “does not and cannot bless sin.”

Blessings require both “the right intention of those who participate” and “that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation,” stated the text.

In allowing such blessings, the new Vatican Declaration takes pains to insist that they should not be given in liturgical settings and should not be confused with sacramental marriage.

At the same time, it undeniably opens the door to the notion that homosexual couples are now “blessable.”

As Father Weinandy writes, although “On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings” may be well intended, “it wreaks havoc on the very nature of blessings.”

“Attempting immorally to exploit God’s blessings makes a mockery of his divine goodness and love,” he concludes.

Hmm.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

So basically these blessings are love the sinner, not the sin?

Nothing wrong with that.  As long as they're careful to hold their standards.

 

[california boy]

I have had numerous conversations with gay men over the years who once were Catholic and feel like their church would have nothing to do with them.  Like a big door was shut, locked and sealed if they found someone they loved to share their life with.  While in no way is the Catholic Church recognizing their marital commitment to each other, they are at least acknowledging that they exist.  For some, it may help them hold onto their faith.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still has the door shut, locked and sealed to gay married couples.  There is no way for similar Mormon couples to hold onto their faith.  They are automatically excommunicated.  Some struggle with that.  Others just walk away, never to return.

 

There are other religions that are willing to bring them right into the Church, allow them to marry and work to bring them to Christ.   Let God sort out what is sin and how it should be judged.  Being LGBT does not mean the Church can not help them make stronger bonds with Christ in this life.

Edited December 20, 2023 by california boy

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I have had numerous conversations with gay men over the years who once were Catholic and feel like their church would have nothing to do with them.  Like a big door was shut, locked and sealed if they found someone they loved to share their life with.  While in no way is the Catholic Church recognizing their marital commitment to each other, they are at least acknowledging that they exist.  For some, it may help them hold onto their faith.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still has the door shut, locked and sealed to gay married couples.  There is no way for similar Mormon couples to hold onto their faith.  They are automatically excommunicated.  Some struggle with that.  Others just walk away, never to return.

 

There are other religions that are willing to bring them right into the Church, allow them to marry and work to bring them to Christ.   Let God sort out what is sin and how it should be judged.  Being LGBT does not mean the Church can not help them make stronger bonds with Christ in this life.

It’s of no use for gay couples to sealed in the temple because the primary purpose and focus of eternal marriage is male-female procreation that continues eternally in a holy creative process the scriptures call “a continuation of the seeds.” Therefore, it would be solemn mockery before God to allow for gay temple marriages because gay couples are incapable of fulfilling the primary objective of eternal marriage, which is celestial procreation that leads to the immortality and eternal life of man.

Perhaps it would be best if gay couples were to simply pledge their undying love for each other, with a promise that they will remain exclusively loyal to each other throughout eternity, but with a mature and realistic acceptance of the |fact that they will never be able to have and raise spirit children?

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by teddyaware

[pogi]

48 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

it would be solemn mockery before God to allow for gay temple marriages because gay couples are incapable of fulfilling the primary objective of eternal marriage, which is celestial procreation that leads to the immortality and eternal life of man.

CFR for any description of how spirit children are made.  “Incapable” seems rather speculative, no?

No solid doctrine here.  Just theories as to why the church is against gay couples, akin to speculations about why blacks couldn’t hold the priesthood - seed of Ham, lazy in pre-existence, etc.  It was all just made up harmful BS.  How ‘bout we just stick to what we know, which is almost nothing in this case.

Edited December 20, 2023 by pogi

[JAHS]

I saw someone explain that they are blessing the individual people in the relationship but not the union of the couple as if it were a marriage.

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

acceptance of the |fact that they will never be able to have and raise spirit children?

 

Really?  Has this been revealed?  CFR.

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Really?  Has this been revealed?  CFR.

I second that CFR. 

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It’s of no use for gay couples to sealed in the temple because the primary purpose and focus of eternal marriage is male-female procreation that continues eternally in a holy creative process the scriptures call “a continuation of the seeds.” Therefore, it would be solemn mockery before God to allow for gay temple marriages because gay couples are incapable of fulfilling the primary objective of eternal marriage, which is celestial procreation that leads to the immortality and eternal life of man.

Perhaps it would be best if gay couples were to simply pledge their undying love for each other, with a promise that they will remain exclusively loyal to each other throughout eternity, but with a mature and realistic acceptance of the |fact that they will never be able to have and raise spirit children?

 

It must be nice to have it all figure out 🙄 

[The Nehor]

The response in most of the lgbt spaces I am in has been that this comes across as kind of condescending. Also some are having a good laugh at the traditional Catholics who are having meltdowns.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Just now, The Nehor said:

The response in most of the lgbt spaces I am in has been that this comes across as kind of condescending. Also some are having a good laugh at the traditional Catholics who are having meltdowns.

I think that the issue with Bishop Joseph Strickland suggests that the Vatican would like to see the rhetoric used against LGBT individuals to stop, and that they want their views taken seriously.

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Perhaps it would be best if gay couples were to simply pledge their undying love for each other, with a promise that they will remain exclusively loyal to each other throughout eternity, but with a mature and realistic acceptance of the |fact that they will never be able to have and raise spirit children?

The real problem for the LDS Church's doctrinal position right now in terms of LGBTQ individuals is the issue with the Proclamation on the Family, which clearly argues that gender is independent of physical biology (that is, all spirits were gendered before they obtained a body). Since we know that infants are routinely (if infrequently) assigned a gender at birth, we have to recognize the reality that biological sex isn't necessarily indicative of eternal gender - and so there are issues that will have to be sorted out at some point that deal with all of these issues.

Part of the reason why they don't want to deal with it in the here and now, is, of course, the complications that comes with biological sex being used, instead of eternal gender, to determine who can hold the priesthood ...

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The real problem for the LDS Church's doctrinal position right now in terms of LGBTQ individuals is the issue with the Proclamation on the Family, which clearly argues that gender is independent of physical biology (that is, all spirits were gendered before they obtained a body). Since we know that infants are routinely (if infrequently) assigned a gender at birth, we have to recognize the reality that biological sex isn't necessarily indicative of eternal gender - and so there are issues that will have to be sorted out at some point that deal with all of these issues.

Part of the reason why they don't want to deal with it in the here and now, is, of course, the complications that comes with biological sex being used, instead of eternal gender, to determine who can hold the priesthood ...

Is it a problem for doctrine or a problem for some individuals (including those who hold the keys of the kingdom) implementing doctrine and sorting out the issues that may arise for individuals? You specified the issue “that biological sex isn't necessarily indicative of eternal gender.” I think our doctrine allows that to be the case: many things in this world don’t quite match up to our eternal attributes and potential. These issues are swallowed up in the Atonement of Jesus Christ (also doctrine) here or in the hereafter.

Some eternal females are given a priesthood office because of their appearance, and some eternal males, appearing female, are not. But given that both receive priesthood endowment through temple ordinances, they are on their way to resolving personal issues and struggles. The doctrine of grace is availed to all, including those making decisions about priesthood ordination and temple recommends. I think this is why President Oaks once said that gender refers to biological sex. He has the keys for running the kingdom of God on earth, and the sealing power connects that to heaven, but those with the sealing power in heaven and who run the kingdom of God there can set things right eventually. Revelation in handling individual cases (personal and leaders’) is also a blessing that can be realized in this life.

[Benjamin McGuire]

52 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think this is why President Oaks once said that gender refers to biological sex.

This doesn't work because there was no biological sex in the pre-existence. It's not worth getting side-tracked on this though, so I'll bow out at this point.

[california boy]

13 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It’s of no use for gay couples to sealed in the temple because the primary purpose and focus of eternal marriage is male-female procreation that continues eternally in a holy creative process the scriptures call “a continuation of the seeds.” Therefore, it would be solemn mockery before God to allow for gay temple marriages because gay couples are incapable of fulfilling the primary objective of eternal marriage, which is celestial procreation that leads to the immortality and eternal life of man.

Perhaps it would be best if gay couples were to simply pledge their undying love for each other, with a promise that they will remain exclusively loyal to each other throughout eternity, but with a mature and realistic acceptance of the |fact that they will never be able to have and raise spirit children?

 

Despite your attempt to just make up doctrine, you still missed the entire point of my post.  Maybe you could direct your comment to exactly what my post was about.

Quote

 While in no way is the Catholic Church recognizing their marital commitment to each other, they are at least acknowledging that they exist.  For some, it may help them hold onto their faith.

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still has the door shut, locked and sealed to gay married couples.  There is no way for similar Mormon couples to hold onto their faith.  They are automatically excommunicated.  Some struggle with that.  Others just walk away, never to return.

There are other religions that are willing to bring them right into the Church, allow them to marry and work to bring them to Christ.   Let God sort out what is sin and how it should be judged.  Being LGBT does not mean the Church can not help them make stronger bonds with Christ in this life.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does nothing to help bring committed gay couples to Christ.  Instead, the Church has taken over God's role of judging their relationship, excommunicates them and doesn't allow their membership or participation when there has been absolutely no revelation from God to do so.  Rather than let God sort things out in the next life, the effort the Church makes is to do all it can to push them away from joining in coming to Christ.  Does that sound like the template Christ gave when he established his Church???  I would like a real answer to that question.  

 

[edvantageous]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still has the door shut, locked and sealed to gay married couples.  There is no way for similar Mormon couples to hold onto their faith.  They are automatically excommunicated.  Some struggle with that.  Others just walk away, never to return.

It is anecdotal -- so is your statement -- but Charlie Bird (former Cosmo Cougar mascot) and his husband attend their ward actively (briefly discussed in one of their recent podcasts: https://questionsfromthecloset.com/episode/?s=6&e=11). I'm not suggesting this works for everyone or that the church has suddenly shifted its position around same-sex marriage, but it's also not true that gay married couples are automatically excommunicated.