Bless Me Father For I Have Sinned

Analysis and a ‘couple’ problems with Fiducia Supplicans - Fr. Brian Straus, S.T.L.

Fiducia Supplicans: “Supplicating Trust.” These Latin words begin Pope Francis’s Declaration issued on Monday, December 18th, and per ecclesiastical custom, the first words become the title by which the document is named. Fiducia means trust, confidence, or even faith. Supplicans means supplicating, beseeching, praying for. Appropriately, the Holy Father’s Declaration has raised discussion about the theology of a blessing, and about what is required of the faithful who have a trust and faith in God that leads us to beseech and seek Him for His saving grace. The document inspires confusion by its vague terminology, and has problematic pastoral implications. But I contend there is a way that Fiducia Supplicans (FS) can be read in continuity with true doctrine, and can really assist the faithful in the life of the Church, but only with specific prerequisites that are not made clear by the text.

Strangely, I first learned about the document on Monday morning through an email from a local journalist asking for an interview about the “change in church policy.” I’m not typically one to miss Church news. Before any of my favorite Church news sources had commented on it, I saw CNN, Reuters, and dozens more secular news outlets blasting headlines like “Pope Francis formally permitted Roman Catholic priests to bless same-sex couples on Monday, in a significant shift in Vatican doctrine” (CNN). I declined the interview as I had not had time to even read the document (published 30 minutes prior), as apparently neither had any decent Catholic news organization, who seemed to be largely silent until that afternoon. What was immediately clear, however, was that the Vatican hadn’t introduced a significant shift in doctrine.

But the Introduction to the Declaration, written by Cardinal Fernandez, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), puzzled me. He said that this document “offers a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings, permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings… [and] implies a real development.” What the Cardinal refers to as a real development and a broadening of the theological understanding wasn’t evident to me, so I did a deep dive into the text itself. A Church document must be read and understood through what Pope Benedict called the “hermeneutic of continuity,” that is, integrated and in harmony with all that has already been definitively taught by the Church. This is the only legitimate way to interpret the Church’s magisterial teaching, even if there really were a doctrinal development involved.

Cardinal Fernandez’s claim can be understood in reference to the Responsum ad Dubium of the DDF of February 22nd, 2021 under Prefect Cardinal Ladaria. Fiducia Supplicans (FS) references it and responds to it at multiple points. Put simply, to the question “Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?”, the Dicastery answered “Negative.” The response explains that the union itself of a couple in an irregular relationship (not married nor ordered toward marriage), including a same-sex relationship, cannot be the object of blessing, especially as this would constitute an imitation of the marriage blessing. However, the 2021 Response adds that any individual may receive a blessing if they “manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching.” But their union as such may not be blessed, for God “does not and cannot bless sin: he blesses sinful man.” 

To clarify our terminology, in English we commonly refer to a sacramental convalidation of marriage as a “marriage blessing.” Convalidation is the conferral of the sacrament of matrimony on those who are already civilly married. This is often referred to as “getting our marriage blessed.” This is not the kind of blessing that is meant by FS.

What development is there in Fiducia Supplicans, if any? FS clarifies that there is the “possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex” (FS 31). Nowhere does the document specify that the union or relationship of such a couple is being blessed; in fact, FS reiterates that the union cannot be blessed (FS 5, cf. FS 11). What does it mean to bless a couple? Presumably, in the Church’s praxis and tradition, individuals may receive blessings; objects and places can be blessed; and groups of people together, like a school, a family, or a pilgrimage group, can be blessed. This latter type of blessing would imply a blessing of the shared identity of that group, not a mere blessing of several individuals standing in proximity. The blessing of a “couple” would imply something more than the blessing of two individuals, but something less than a blessing of the union itself. 

But the Vatican’s use of the word “couples” (in German Paaren, Italian coppie, Spanish parejas,French couples) is an innovation when speaking of two people of the same sex. Within the milieu of Catholic anthropology, the term “couple” would only signify a man and woman joined in marriage, or in a relationship that at least in principle approximates and is directed towards marriage (dating, engaged). It would not accurately signify an irregular relationship that is not in principle compatible with marriage (e.g. one or both people in the relationship are divorced and remarried without annulment). This may sound like arbitrary semantics, but it means that the Vatican is approving blessings for two people qua their specific relationship, even if irregular (not compatible with the vision of biblical anthropology taught by the Catholic Church). FS is clear that the union itself cannot be approved or blessed, but it implies something more than the mere blessing of individuals in proximity. Herein lies the “real development” implied by Cardinal Fernandez, as far as I can tell. Thanks to Joe Heschmeyer on Pints with Aquinas 12/20/23 for pointing out this distinction.

Where does this land us? Can the Dicastery even do that? I think the terminology is a bit sloppy and inconsistent, but that’s not to say it’s impossible. As FS rightly clarifies, there is a distinction between liturgical or pastoral blessings. But the essay published in The Pillar by Gerhard Cardinal Müller (former Prefect of the CDF) on 12/21/23 explores that distinction. As Cardinal Müller explains, a category of “pastoral blessings” that is totally severed from the sacraments and from Catholic teaching cannot be possible. That is, pastoral or private blessings are essentially connected to and derive from the sacraments, the fount of grace entrusted to the Church and her ordained ministers. Even if based in popular piety, such blessings would derive their efficacy from the deposit of faith and the sacramental economy, so they could not be employed for objects or relationships that are opposed to the Faith.

Therefore, if we are to understand FS charitably and in continuity with the true teaching of the Church, then irregular or same-sex relationships as such cannot be blessed, as they are essentially opposed to the Faith. Let’s not forget the words of Pope Francis’s exhortation Amoris Laetitia that “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage” (AL 251). Same-sex couples could be blessed, as FS says, insofar as they are individuals seeking God’s grace to draw close to Christ and turn away from sin in their lives. This could not be the blessing of a couple in their identity as a couple, which would be blessing their life and wills specifically in opposition to the Gospel. The fact that FS uses the term couple as the recipient of such a blessing is one reason Cardinal Müller says the text is self-contradictory and needs clarification, “since what defines a couple as couple is precisely their being a union” (Müller). While FS repeats that a sinful union itself can’t be blessed, it blurs the lines between individuals and their relationships. We ought not think of a “union,” such as a sacramental marriage, as a subsistent entity distinct from the persons involved; a union only exists in and through the persons involved who are the subjects of the blessing. It’s possible to interpret FS in steadfast continuity with Church teaching, but it’s heavily implied that same-sex couples seeking a blessing upon them as couples should not be questioned. 

Cardinal Fernandez himself has clarified in an interview with The Pillar on 12/23/23 that the document indeed does mean “couples,” not the union itself, nor merely the individuals. He claims that this is “no change in the doctrine on marriage,” but he fails to explain how the term “couple” signifies the object of the blessing distinct from the “union” itself. As mentioned, a union is not a thing in itself. Rather than clarify the metaphysical dilemma of the vocabulary, his Eminence moralized about how we shouldn’t be judges, just offer a paternal gesture. No argument from me about the benefits of compassion, but for an authoritative document like this, the terminology is pretty clumsy and the theological implications are unclear.

So can the Vatican do this? I think so, with some heavy qualifications, if “couple” means the two persons and not their relationship per se. Obviously the Declaration is crystal clear that a pastoral blessing for irregular couples should in no way imitate or approximate a wedding or civil union ceremony, in terms of gestures, clothing or words. Neither should such a blessing be ritualized or regulated by any bishop, diocese or conference. So it’s fair to assume that a legitimate blessing of a couple according to FS would not look like the blessing imparted by Fr. James Martin, S.J. to a same-sex couple as published by the New York Times on 12/19/23. While Fr. Martin avoided liturgical vestments and texts, his planned, photographed, and deliberate blessing contradicts the substance of FS. It is possible that Fr. Martin counseled the couple about their need to repent of sin, especially of their relationship and behavior contrary to the Gospel, and exhorted them to accept the grace of Christ to help them turn away from their sins and be converted; but this wasn’t mentioned in Fr. Martin’s comments or in the Times article. 

What would a pastoral and legitimate blessing of a same-sex or irregular couple look like, according to the text of FS? I think it would include two necessary characteristics. The first is spontaneity. People routinely approach priests for a spontaneous blessing of an object or for a special need, such as a speech they have to give, or their travel plans. Sometimes pilgrims meet a priest in an airport and ask for a blessing for no specific reason at all! And the longstanding popular piety of the Church indicates that such blessings are given without question, and through such a blessing, God’s actual grace can be imparted in a particular moment according to His will and the intention of the recipient. Any human being can receive such a blessing! Rightly, FS explains that “when people ask for a blessing, an exhaustive moral analysis should not be placed as a precondition for conferring it. For, those seeking a blessing should not be required to have prior moral perfection” (FS 25). When people approach me to ask for a blessing, I might ask why, in case there is some special intention as mentioned above. But I wouldn’t refuse a blessing simply because I don’t thoroughly know the person or people involved. But any kind of scheduled, publicized blessing would preclude this spontaneity, and would take on more of the character of a public liturgical blessing of the Church. For example, two men request to receive a blessing in front of the altar with their friends and family present after the morning Mass, where all the participants understand these two men to be a couple. Such an event would start to resemble a ceremony or ritual, and the public and organized nature of it could be perceived as a legitimation of the disordered nature of the relationship, and cause scandal by the apparent approval of the Church’s minister. As examples of contexts where a truly spontaneous blessing might occur, FS lists “a visit to a shrine, a meeting with a priest, a prayer recited in a group, or during a pilgrimage.” 

The second necessary ingredient to an FS blessing would be repentance. The purpose of a blessing, FS says, is to ask God’s mercy, increase trust in God, and bring light to fulfill God’s will in one’s life. How utterly beautiful and appropriate for every child of God! But fulfilling God’s will in one’s life means repenting of our past sins and rejecting the sins that keep us chained up. All of us are sinners in various ways who need God’s grace to do just that. A blessing should only be given to those who are open -- even partially or imperfectly -- to God’s saving grace which unites us to His will. FS claims that even the very request to receive a blessing expresses this openness: “This request should, in every way, be valued, accompanied, and received with gratitude. People who come spontaneously to ask for a blessing show by this request their sincere openness to transcendence, the confidence of their hearts that they do not trust in their own strength alone, their need for God, and their desire to break out of the narrow confines of this world…” (FS 21). Why would anybody ask for a blessing if they don’t believe that it imparts God’s grace? And if they do believe that, then ostensibly they accept (even imperfectly) the Gospel’s call to repentance and faith, including the need to order our lives by Gospel values. But if a blessing were sought from the Church’s minister as a form of approval, self-justification, or public display, it may not actually express an openness to God’s power. One could imagine a corrupt dictator receiving the bishop’s blessing after his incendiary speech, which would certainly not imply openness and conversion of heart. 

Certainly I think there can be situations where a blessing described by FS contains this quality of repentance. Imagine a same-sex couple who have been legally married and adopted children. One or both of them have recently been inspired through sermons or books about the beauty and truth of the Catholic faith. They want to grow closer to Christ’s grace and life in the Church, and they are being convinced of what Christ teaches about marriage and the family. It’s not clear to them how they can embrace their new convictions, as they are bound in obligations of household and parenthood together. They are struggling to reconcile their love for God with their same-sex attraction, mutual love, and life experiences. The love of Jesus compels them forward, but they need accompaniment and blessing to persevere in following God’s will, retaining the good gifts God has blessed them with, and sometimes painfully shedding the objectively sinful aspects of the lifestyle they’ve inhabited. They could certainly approach a priest, sincerely asking for God’s blessing, without necessarily altering their entire way of life all at once. Pastoral accompaniment encourages welcoming such people to the Church and to the help of a blessing, as well as the charitable presumption that they are doing their best to process the call of God in their lives and drawing nearer to Him.

If such a couple approached me, specifically identifying themselves as a couple, I would engage in conversation with them to see if they understood that God’s loving salvation calls them to repent of what is sinful. To see if they recognize that they are not evil for having their inclinations and experiences, but that choosing homosexual actions or lifestyles is objectively sinful and incompatible with sanctity. That Jesus loves them and wants to help them. If they expressed understanding of that, then a blessing would be laudable to help them in their openness to God’s call. If they obstinately refused to show openness to the Church’s teaching and to conversion, then a blessing couldn’t be given to them, because apparently a blessing from God is not what they’re actually requesting, as the Church understands it. Supposedly, they would be seeking God’s help in doing His will, in opposition to what He has actually revealed to be His will through Scripture and the Church! That’s like trying to order an omelet without eggs, a self-contradiction. Father Raymond de Souza, writing in the National Catholic Register on 12/22/23, highlighted the ambiguity of what the blessing is blessing. While the priest may be blessing the irregular couple in the hope that by Providence they will be brought to repentance and change, the couple themselves may perceive the blessing as a graceful aid to “mutual solidarity, orderly housekeeping, sparkling conversation — but not the sinful aspects” (de Souza). I’m no doctor of the Church, but it seems to me that the blessing could only be a request specifically for God’s grace  to bring about repentance, freedom from sin, the light of wisdom to reveal moral truth, and other such accompanying graces, not to uplift the “good parts” of the relationship while enabling the objectively evil situation to persist. So I would think that repentance (even imperfect) of the evil situation is intrinsically necessary on the part of both the priest and the couple for the blessing to be licit at all. While an exhaustive  analysis of the couple’s motivations couldn’t be done before an impromptu airport blessing as described above, at least the minister must make it clear that God is not blessing this couple to gladden them in their current irregular state! 

It could be added that the need to affirm an irregular couple in repentance (or at least openness to it) would necessitate a third ingredient, accompaniment. Sinners need the assurance of the Church that she will walk with them and bring them to a full encounter with Christ’s grace, while helping them navigate the many obstacles. Accompaniment doesn’t mean leaving the sinner indefinitely in their situation, but prayerfully and compassionately helping them move from Point A to Point Ω. As I opened my reflection with the first words of the document, we pastoral ministers must work with the fiducia supplicans, the “supplicating trust” that faithful sinners have, which is placed in their hearts by God’s grace. The impetus that drives people toward Christ and His Church is a great gift, and with God’s blessing it can draw sinners into the hope that Christ can conquer any enemy in our lives, even our own sinful inclinations and habits. I believe that is Pope Francis’s intention in signing FS: finding a way for pastoral ministers to reach out to those who have an imperfect but authentic openness to the Gospel, and bestowing the grace they need to draw closer to life in the Catholic Church.

I write my comments not to naively explain away the problems with this document, but to assure myself and others that it’s not a stark rupture in Catholic theology. It can and should be read in continuity with all that God has revealed about the truth of marriage, sin and grace, as FS itself makes clear. But there’s reading the words of the document, and then there’s reading between the lines. Another long essay would be necessary to elucidate the pastoral problems that this document will surely bring about around the world, and the confusion that has already scandalized the faithful. Some problems are perhaps being addressed by the Holy Father directly; for example, some European bishops’ conferences had been attempting to ritualize a blessing for same-sex unions, which this Declaration shuts down. However, lay leaders of the German Synodal Way have already responded with their intentions to continue ritualizing a framework for an FS blessing, something expressly forbidden in the Declaration. Will this be corrected by the Vatican? The unclear terminology of the document, as well as the ways that it will surely be misinterpreted and misused by clergy around the world, once again puts the burden on pastors to attempt to bring clarity to the faithful where the Vatican seems reticent, as “no further responses should be expected” to clarify this topic (FS 41). This Declaration may be misused by clergy not to bring sinners to God’s mercy and grace, but actually to “bless” them in their objectively sinful situations and scandalously approve them. Pastoral discernment with the faithful is inhibited when the Vatican chooses to be vaguely and incrementally permissive, while pastors have to be the “bad guys” who proclaim the hard truths of the Gospel. But let us have the supplicans fiducia to place our trust in God and pray for the unity of all who seek Him with a sincere heart. As Pope Francis says, Christ is “the Eternal Word, with whom the Father blessed us ‘while we were still sinners’ (Rom. 5:8), as St. Paul says” (FS 1).

---

This article was submitted by one of our readers. The individual writer holds their own views and opinions, and they are not accountable for the expressions and beliefs of their fellow writers. Authors are responsible for the factual accuracy of their work. Our commitment is to uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Magisterium faithfully. We welcome and encourage disagreement and debate within the scope of the Magisterium's authority..