Details

Written by: Dan

Category: Catholic

Published: 06 February 2024

One of the things I've taken to doing recently is going to Mass (I generally attend a Novus Ordo Mass, even though I prefer the TLM) with my traditional Sunday missal. During the Mass, especially starting right after the Credo, I follow my missal instead of whatever is going on in the local Mass. I believe the form of the traditional Mass (especially the prayers of the Offertory and the Canon) better express the essence of the Mass than does the form used for the Novus Order. Accordingly, by focusing on those traditional prayers, I believe I more actively participate in the Mass going on in front of me, than if I were to join the congregation around me in the modern forms.

But that's not what this is about.

As part of following a traditional Sunday missal, I've noticed something about the liturgical calendar as it existed prior to the post-Vatican II reforms: The entire year is expressed in terms of the chief events and feasts of the Church.

The liturgical year starts with Advent, which leads into Christmas. This is the same as the modern calendar. But then Christmastide is capped with the celebration of the Epiphany. From that point on, all the Sundays up to Septuagesmia Sunday are named according to their relation to Epiphany: First Sunday after Epiphany, Second Sunday after Epiphany, etc. Septuagesima Sunday is named for its relation to another feast: It is seventy days before Easter. The next Sunday, Sexagesima Sunday, is (about) sixty days before Easter, and then Quinquagesima Sunday is (you might have guessed) about fifty days before Easter. After Quinquagesima Sunday comes Ash Wednesday, which starts the penitential season of Lent, which leads to and is meant for preparation for Easter. Easter Sunday starts the season of Easter, commonly called "Paschaltide." Paschaltide extends to the Pentecost, and ends in a ten-day stretch called Ascensiontide, which is the time from the Feast of the Ascension to the Pentecost. For the remainder of the year, the Sundays are (generally) named for their relation to Pentecost.

This system does a wonder work of keeping one grounded in liturgical time. Every Sunday (more frequently, if one prays the traditional Divine Office), one is kept aware of the most relevant significant feast for the time of year, and reminded that the life of the Church is all about the events celebrated by these feasts - especially Pentecost.

So, what about the modern calendar? As a matter of first impression, if one needed to come up with a liturgical calendar and were given the general structure and priority of feasts, one could do worse than the modern calendar and its use of Ordinary Time. But it doesn't come close to accomplishing what the traditional calendar does, in terms of rooting the liturgical life of the individual Catholic in the spiritual life of the Church.

The problem is that we're not in a situation of first impression. We had an existing calendar that had been arrived at with some centuries of wisdom. Then somebody decided that the spiritually edifying aspects of that calendar needed, for some reason, to be gutted.

 

Details

Written by: Dan

Category: Catholic

Published: 17 January 2024

In spite of the attention it's been getting, I did not, until recently, actually read Fiducia Supplicans. The rest of this post is that document in its entirety (with the accompanying letter) as presented in English on the Vatican website, with my reactions in real time throughout the document.

What I mean by real time is that, as I read, I immediately recorded my reactions to what I was reading and had read so far. While I did go back through these and edit for clarity, I did not change any of their substance.

As a point of disclosure, I am only a Catholic layman, with no formal training in theology, ecclesiology, liturgy, or other matters religious. (I don't count my 12 years at Catholic school to be formal training.) I say things here that are entirely my understanding of the Faith and the Church. Accordingly, I am open to correction on any point, provided such correction is well-established.

DICASTERY FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

Declaration

Fiducia Supplicans

On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings

Presentation

This Declaration considers several questions that have come to this Dicastery in recent years. In preparing the document, the Dicastery, as is its practice, consulted experts, undertook a careful drafting process, and discussed the text in the Congresso of the Doctrinal Section of the Dicastery. During that time, the document was discussed with the Holy Father. Finally, the text of the Declaration was submitted to the Holy Father for his review, and he approved it with his signature.

While the subject matter of this document was being studied, the Holy Father’s response to the Dubia of some Cardinals was made known. That response provided important clarifications for this reflection and represents a decisive element for the work of the Dicastery. Since “the Roman Curia is primarily an instrument at the service of the successor of Peter” (Ap. Const. Praedicate Evangelium, II, 1), our work must foster, along with an understanding of the Church’s perennial doctrine, the reception of the Holy Father’s teaching.

The statement “our work must foster...the Holy Father’s teaching.” is odd. The perennial understanding of the teaching authority of the Holy Father’s as the successor of Peter is that he is supposed to preserve and (as needed) clarify that which was given to the Church through the Apostles. Indeed, by virtue of his office, he enjoys certain charisms specifically directed to that end. There should be no such thing as “the Holy Father’s teaching” that is distinct from “an understanding of the Church’s perennial doctrine.”

As with the Holy Father’s above-mentioned response to the Dubia of two Cardinals, this Declaration remains firm on the traditional doctrine of the Church about marriage, not allowing any type of liturgical rite or blessing similar to a liturgical rite that can create confusion. The value of this document, however, is that it offers a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings, permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings, which is closely linked to a liturgical perspective. Such theological reflection, based on the pastoral vision of Pope Francis, implies a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church. This explains why this text has taken on the typology of a “Declaration.”

“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, which is closely linked to a liturgical perspective.”

What does that even mean? Unpacking from back to front, here’s what it looks like:

There is a classical (perennial?) understanding of blessings. That understanding is closely linked to a liturgical perspective.

That makes sense, so far, because “liturgical” refers to the public prayer of the Church—that is the life of the Church. The Church’s established understanding of blessings is closely linked to the life of the Church.

We’re permitting this classical understanding to be broadened and enriched.

OK…not quite clear what that means. Anybody can broaden and enrich their understanding of matters of the Church by reflecting on them appropriately.

Blessings have a pastoral meaning.

Again...not sure quite what this means. Blessings have a pastoral purpose. Is that the same as a “pastoral meaning”?

This document offers an innovative contribution to that pastoral meaning.

Does that mean something is being added to the purpose of blessings—something that has not been part of their purpose throughout the Church’s history?

It is this innovative contribution that permits the classical understanding of blessings to be broadened.

So, it looks like Cardinal Fernandez is saying, here, that by taking something and putting it to a new purpose, he’s permitting the classical understanding of that thing to be broadened.

I guess it’s kind of as if you take an automobile and put it to a new purpose (say, to kill someone). By doing that, you’ve permitted the classical understanding of the automobile to be broadened: Now, it’s not just a mode of transportation, but also a type of weapon.

“Such theological reflection...implies a real development from what has been said about blessings.…”

I find it interesting that the English translation, here, is “development from” and not something like “development of” or even “development on top of.”

“This explains why this text has taken on the typology of a ‘Declaration.’”

This seems to imply that this declaration intends to establish something new and not merely repeat, clarify, or apply that which is already understood and practiced by the Church. Those who have said that there’s “nothing new, here” might want to try to at least take Cardinal Fernandez at his word.

It is precisely in this context that one can understand the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage.

“...precisely in this context…”

What context is he talking about? The context of innovation? The context of a declaration? The context of the classical understanding of blessings?

Reactions to this document (and its introductory letter) aside, I have to wonder whether such an imprecise style of writing reflects an equally imprecise approach to thinking that is precisely at the root of the modern problems in the Church.

This Declaration is also intended as a tribute to the faithful People of God, who worship the Lord with so many gestures of deep trust in his mercy and who, with this confidence, constantly come to seek a blessing from Mother Church.

A “tribute”? Really? In what way, precisely?

Víctor Manuel Card. Fernández
Prefect

Introduction

1. The supplicating trust of the faithful People of God receives the gift of blessing that flows from the Heart of Christ through his Church.

Huh? The “trust” is what receives the gift of blessing?

Still it’s interesting, given what I know about where this document is going, that he explicitly says “faithful People of God.” This would be the people who faithfully (the need for regular Confession notwithstanding) follow the commands of God. It would certainly be difficult to regard the phrase as even possibly referring to those who reject any intention to follow the commands of God. Likewise, for those who deny that the moral teachings of the Church are commands of God.

Pope Francis offers this timely reminder: “The great blessing of God is Jesus Christ. He is the great gift of God, his own Son. He is a blessing for all humanity, a blessing that has saved us all.

Technically, it’s incorrect to say that Jesus “saved” us all. Rather, we say that He “redeemed” us all, since His sacrifice on the Cross paid the debt for all sins, even of those who will refuse His mercy and are therefore to be cast into the eternal lake of fire.

He is the Eternal Word, with whom the Father blessed us ‘while we were still sinners’ (Rom. 5:8), as St. Paul says. He is the Word made flesh, offered for us on the cross.”[1]

2. Encouraged by such a great and consoling truth, this Dicastery has considered several questions of both a formal and an informal nature

What does he mean by “questions of both a formal and an informal nature?” What’s the distinction he’s going for?

Does he mean questions that have been formally submitted (e.g., in writing following a canonical process) as well as those asked outside such a process?

Or does he mean there’s something of the questions themselves that make some of them to have a “formal” nature while others have an “informal” nature?

about the possibility of blessing same-sex couples and—in light of Pope Francis’ fatherly and pastoral approach—of offering new clarifications on the Responsum ad dubium[2] that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published on 22 February 2021.

3. The above-mentioned Responsum elicited numerous and varied reactions: some welcomed the clarity of the document and its consistency with the Church’s perennial teaching; others did not share the negative response it gave to the question

“...did not share the negative response…”???

What does that mean? That some people didn’t like it? Some people didn’t agree with it? Why must he employ such obfuscatory linguistic formulations to convey uncomplicated realities?

or did not consider the formulation of its answer and the reasons provided in the attached Explanatory Note to be sufficiently clear.

The “formulation of its answer” was not sufficiently clear? It was one word: “Negative.” What could be clearer than that?

The reason, “God does not and cannot bless sin,” was not clear?

To meet the latter reaction

He means “to meet the refusal of some to accept the Church’s answer...”

with fraternal charity, it seems opportune to take up the theme again and offer a vision that draws together the doctrinal aspects with the pastoral ones in a coherent manner 

This seems to imply (incorrectly) that the original Responsum failed to “offer a vision that draws together the doctrinal aspects with the pastoral ones in a coherent manner.”

To be sure...so far (I’m only on paragraph 3) this Declaration and its accompanying letter has been far less coherent than the Responsum that it proposes to clarify.

because “all religious teaching ultimately has to be reflected in the teacher’s way of life, which awakens the assent of the heart by its nearness, love, and witness.”[3]

I’m not sure what this has to do with anything. I can’t say what was meant by Pope Francis on this point, since his own writing tends to be rather incoherent. However, taking the statement on its textual face, this means that a teacher has to live the way he teaches. His way of life must conform to the religious doctrine that it is his charge to preserve and convey to the next generation. Indeed, this is the only correct way, within the Tradition of the Church, to understand such a statement.

So, if we are to accept this as an indication of the intentions of this Declaration, then we would expect that the remainder of the Declaration would point out the ways in which the pastoral aspects [of blessings] must be brought into conformity with the already known and understood (perennial? classical?) doctrinal aspects.

Somehow, I don’t think that’s what he means to do. As with everything from the topsy-turvy Francis pontificate, I suspect he means to do just the opposite of what he implies.

I. The Blessing in the Sacrament of Marriage

4. Pope Francis’ recent response to the second of the five questions posed by two Cardinals[4] offers an opportunity to explore this issue further, especially in its pastoral implications. It is a matter of avoiding that “something that is not marriage is being recognized as marriage.”[5]

The question cited here, along with the entirety of Pope Francis’ response, is reproduced below in its entirety. It is worth noting several things about it that can inform on the continued lack of clarity and coherence that seems to plague this document.

The question:

Dubium regarding the affirmation that the widespread practice of blessing same-sex unions is in accordance with Revelation and the Magisterium (CCC 2357).

According to the Divine Revelation, attested to in Sacred Scripture, which the Church teaches, “listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit” (Dei Verbum, n. 10): “In principio” [“In the beginning”] God created man in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them, and blessed them so that they may be fruitful (cf. Gen. 1:27-28). For this reason, the Apostle Paul teaches that denying sexual difference is the consequence of denying the Creator (Rom. 1:24-32). It is asked: can the Church derogate from this “principio,” considering it as a mere ideal—in contrast to what was taught in Veritatis Splendor, 103—and accepting as a “possible good” objectively sinful situations, such as unions with persons of the same sex, without departing from revealed doctrine?

Pope Francis’ answer:

(a) The Church has a very clear understanding of marriage: it is an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children. Only this type of union does the Church call a “marriage.” Other forms of union realize it only in “a partial and analogous way” (Amoris Laetitia, 292), which is why they cannot be called “marriage,” strictly speaking.

(b) This is not just a question of names. The reality we call marriage has an essential constitution that is unique; as a result, it requires an exclusive name that is not applicable to other realities. Undoubtedly, it is much more than a mere “ideal.”

(c) For this reason, the Church avoids any type of rite or sacramental that might contradict this conviction and imply that something that is not marriage is being recognized as marriage.

(d) Nevertheless, in our dealings with people, we must not lose pastoral charity, which should permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defense of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity; it also includes kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot become judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.

(e) For this reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey an erroneous conception of marriage. For, when one asks for a blessing, one is expressing a petition for God’s assistance, a plea to live better, and confidence in a Father who can help us live better.

(f) On the other hand, even though there are situations that are not morally acceptable from an objective point of view, the same pastoral charity requires us not to treat simply as “sinners” those whose guilt or responsibility may be attenuated by various factors affecting subjective imputability (cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).

(g) Decisions that may be part of pastoral prudence in certain circumstances should not necessarily become a norm. That is to say, it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops’ Conference, or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially establish procedures or rituals for all kinds of matters, since not everything that “is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances can be elevated to the level of a rule” as this “would lead to an intolerable casuistry” (Amoris Laetitia, 304). Canon Law should not and cannot cover everything, nor should the Episcopal Conferences claim to do so with their various documents and protocols, since the life of the Church flows through many channels besides the normative ones. 

First, note that Francis answers the question in the negative, in section (b) of his response.

Second, Francis clearly wants to give permission, here, for priests to impart blessings to same-sex couples, but he can’t quite bring himself to do that. He focuses in on the question of “forms of blessing” that “do not convey an erroneous conception of marriage,” as though that were the standard to be achieved. But he never says anything in his response that contradicts the clear, absolute formulation of the Responsum that this declaration claims to clarify.

Parts (d), (e), and (f) of Francis’ response all use flowery language about pastoral charity. They call on pastors to not “become judges who only deny, reject, and exclude” [emphasis mine], to “not to treat simply as ‘sinners’ those whose guilt or responsibility may be attenuated by various factors affecting subjective imputability.”

This is not new in the Church. Priests have always had more to do than only deny, reject, and exclude. But they do have to deny, reject, and exclude where appropriate. Similarly, priests have never treated people (regardless of the circumstances mitigating their guilt) as “simply sinners,” but have always treated people as either penitents (if they have repented) or potential penitents (if they still need to repent).

[Note: Regarding the above, of course, I don’t mean this to a man in the priesthood, but only in regards to the habit of priests, generally.]

The one thing that Francis’ response did clarify—something which, while always implicit in the Church’s praxis, may not have been explicit—is that bishops, Episcopal Conferences, and Canon Law should not presume to micromanage every situation that that might come up in the life of the faithful. Well, I’m glad that’s cleared up!

Nonetheless, the claim that Francis’ answer “offers an opportunity to explore this issue further, especially in its pastoral implications” doesn’t really hold water. Furthermore, given the clarity and completeness of the Responsum itself, the claim that “It is a matter of avoiding that ‘something that is not marriage is being recognized as marriage’” is downright disingenuous. As the Responsum already makes clear, it is a matter of not presuming God’s approval for those things of which God has already told us He disapproves.

This clear disingenuity in what presumes to be a magisterial declaration of the Church is more distressing, even than the effects that this declaration will have within the Church. (I’m referring, of course, to the effects of encouraging priests to bless same-sex couples and encouraging people with same-sex inclinations to seek out blessings for their sin instead of turning away from their evil desires.)

Therefore, rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage—which is the “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children”[6]—and what contradicts it are inadmissible. 

As noted above, the Responsum has already gone far beyond this. It made clear that the the Church’s sacramentals—particularly those we call “blessings”—cannot be applied to those unions and situations that are intrinsically sinful, as same-sex unions are, according to the Responsum, the Gospel, and the constant teaching of the Church.

This conviction is grounded in the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage; it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning. The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm.
“The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm.”

That last sentence, read a certain way (with emphasis on the word “this”), could imply that the Church has doctrine, on other points, which might be less than firm.

5. This is also the understanding of marriage that is offered by the Gospel. For this reason, when it comes to blessings, the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion. Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.

Again, the Responsum goes far beyond just clarifying that blessings shouldn’t lead to confusion regarding the distinction between marriage and other arrangements. It says simply (correctly) that God “does not and cannot bless sin.”

6. It should be emphasized that in the Rite of the Sacrament of Marriage, this concerns not just any blessing but a gesture reserved to the ordained minister. In this case, the blessing given by the ordained minister is tied directly to the specific union of a man and a woman, who establish an exclusive and indissoluble covenant by their consent. This fact allows us to highlight the risk of confusing a blessing given to any other union with the Rite that is proper to the Sacrament of Marriage.

Yet again, the risk of confusing non-marital blessings with marital blessings has never been the reason behind the “Negative” answer in the Responsum, nor is it even close to the primary reason that the Church cannot bless same-sex unions.

II. The Meaning of the Various Blessings

7. The Holy Father’s above-mentioned response invites us to broaden and enrich the meaning of blessings.

It doesn’t, really...but let’s see where he goes with this line of reasoning.

8. Blessings are among the most widespread and evolving

Evolving?

sacramentals. Indeed, they lead us to grasp God’s presence in all the events of life and remind us that, even in the use of created things, human beings are invited to seek God, to love him, and to serve him faithfully.[7] 

“...even in the use of created things…?”

It’s primarily in the use of created things that we’re invited (well, actually commanded) to love and serve God.

Come to think of it, it’s ONLY through the use of created things that we’re capable of loving and serving God.

Really, what on earth can Cardinal Fernandez possibly mean by this sentence?

For this reason, blessings have as their recipients: people; objects of worship and devotion; sacred images; places of life, of work, and suffering; the fruits of the earth and human toil; and all created realities that refer back to the Creator, praising and blessing him by their beauty.

OK, yeah. We (that is, the Church, through priests) bless people, things, and acts in the material world. We don’t presume to bless angels, much less God Himself.

(Except in that other sense of blessing, like “Bless he Lord, my soul.” But this paragraph of the declaration is clearly referring to the conferral of blessings, as by a priest.)

The Liturgical Meaning of the Rites of Blessing

9. From a strictly liturgical point of view, a blessing requires that what is blessed be conformed to God’s will, as expressed in the teachings of the Church.

“From a strictly liturgical point of view”? How about “from any honest point of view”?

The Responsum that this declaration claims to clarify already makes this point clear.

But I want to camp on this single line for a minute. What does Cardinal Fernandez mean by a “strictly liturgical point of view,” when talking about blessings? I can’t think of anything meaningful in that phrase.

Consider from whom we ask for a blessing: We ask a priest. Why? Because a priest, by virtue of his Ordination (that is, by his liturgical elevation to the priesthood by the imparting of an indelible mark on his soul) has the power to efficaciously impart God’s favor (blessing) to us and to those things in our lives that can, through their proper use, draw us closer to God. Within the Church’s understanding, there is no such thing as a priest’s blessing that is not liturgical, because the priest’s capacity to bless is a liturgical reality. If this weren’t the case, we would not seek out a priest for a blessing.

So, when Fernandez presumes to examine the nature of blessings “from a strictly liturgical point of view,” he necessarily is examining them from the only point of view by which they are efficacious.

Obviously, for a blessing (a calling down of God’s “bene dictus” or good word) to be efficacious, the thing being

blessed must be in conformity to God’s will. Any other consideration of a blessing is like talking about a square circle.

10. Indeed, blessings are celebrated by virtue of faith

What does it mean for a blessing to be “celebrated?” Does he mean “conferred?”

If he means something other than “conferred,” then this point needs clarification. (Note that, far from clarifying the Responsum he is badly muddying the waters.)

If, by “celebrated,” he means “conferred,” then he’s just incorrect. A blessing (at least a priest’s blessing) is not conferred by virtue of faith, but by virtue of the words and of the priest’s own ordinary powers—by the priest’s liturgical participation, in a special way, in the priesthood of Jesus.

and are ordered to the praise of God and the spiritual benefit of his people. As the Book of Blessings explains, “so that this intent might become more apparent, by an ancient tradition, the formulas of blessing are primarily aimed at giving glory to God for his gifts, asking for his favors, and restraining the power of evil in the world.”[8] Therefore, those who invoke God’s blessing through the Church are invited to “strengthen their dispositions through faith, for which all things are possible” and to trust in “the love that urges the observance of God’s commandments.”[9] This is why, while “there is always and everywhere an opportunity to praise God through Christ, in the Holy Spirit,” there is also a care to do so with “things, places, or circumstances that do not contradict the law or the spirit of the Gospel.”[10] This is a liturgical understanding of blessings insofar as they are rites officially proposed by the Church.

Wow! What abject chicanery! Let’s examine what Cardinal Fernandez is doing, here:

1. He’s taking a reality that is liturgical in nature (a priest’s blessing).

2. He’s identifying an instrument (the Book of Blessings) by which many of the specific formulations of that reality are liturgically provided.

3. Then he’s pretending that the instrument by which specific liturgical formulations are provided is the whole of the liturgical aspect of blessings—completely ignoring the ordinary powers of the priest that are necessary for their efficacy!

4. By doing this, he’s presuming to to bifurcate the reality of blessings: On the one hand, he proposes that there are those blessings which flow directly from the Book of Blessings. These blessings, Fernandez says, have a “liturgical understanding.” The implication is that there’s a non-liturgical understanding of blessings that can be applied to those blessings that are not part of the set of “rites officially proposed by the Church.”

But a priest’s blessing, insomuch as it is given as a priest’s blessing and in order for it to be efficacious, is necessarily liturgical and cannot be separated from the “liturgical understanding of blessings.”

11. Basing itself on these considerations, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Explanatory Note to its 2021 Responsum recalls that when a blessing is invoked on certain human relationships by a special liturgical rite, it is necessary that what is blessed corresponds with God’s designs written in creation and fully revealed by Christ the Lord.

More apparent disingenuity by Cardinal Fernandez: The Responsum does not recall that “when a blessing is invoked on certain human relationships by a special liturgical rite, it is necessary that what is blessed correspond with God’s designs...” Rather, it states that “when a blessing is invoked on particular human relationships [no qualification], it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace…”

It is difficult to read this without coming to the conclusion that there is bad faith on the part of Cardinal Fernandez, with regards to the work of his predecessor.

For this reason, since the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice.

Again, Fernandez is completely out of line with the Responsum here. It’s not that the Church doesn’t have the power to confer “liturgical blessing” when that would “offer moral legitimacy” to something that “presumes to be a marriage.” Rather, it is simply that the Church cannot bless that which is sinful.

The Holy Father reiterated the substance of this Declaration in his Respuestas to the Dubia of two Cardinals.

12. One must also avoid the risk of reducing the meaning of blessings to this point of view alone, 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.

What does he mean here? What “point of view” is it to which one must avoid the risk of reducing the meaning of blessings?

Does he mean the point of view that a priest should only confer any blessing for which there is a specific formula in the Book of Blessings should be avoided? If so, then perhaps he’s correct. Perhaps not. I don’t know what the practice of the Church is, regarding this matter, but my understanding is that the Book of Blessings, while containing specific formulas for many objects, types of persons (regarding their state, vocation, etc.) and situations, also provides general-purpose formulas for exactly those situations that were not conceived in the minds of its authors, but might still be legitimate objects of a priestly blessing.

If this is the case, then what does it mean to avoid reducing the meaning of blessings to this point of view? Would it mean that a priest needs to be free to reject even the general-purpose formulas for ones of his own authorship? What value could that possibly hold?

And what does any of that have to do with the moral conditions for a simple blessing? Does the Book of Blessings currently maintain that a human recipient of a blessing must meet some particular moral condition? Is this moral condition different from that for the reception of the Sacrament of Confession?

This sentence is just a non sequitur. There’s just nothing in reality or logic that connects any “point of view” so far mentioned about blessings with any expectation regarding moral conditions.

Such a risk requires that we broaden this perspective further. 

What “perspective” is he talking about?

Indeed, there is the danger that a pastoral gesture that is so beloved and widespread will be subjected to too many moral prerequisites, which, under the claim of control, could overshadow the unconditional power of God’s love that forms the basis for the gesture of blessing.

Honestly, this paragraph is incomprehensible. There’s just no way to assign meaning to it.

13. Precisely in this regard, Pope Francis urged us not to “lose pastoral charity, which should permeate all our decisions and attitudes” and to avoid being “judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.”[11] Let us then respond to the Holy Father’s proposal by developing a broader understanding of blessings.

With all the rubbish above as preface, it looks like we’re finally getting down to business.

We’ll see.

Blessings in Sacred Scripture

14. To reflect on blessings by gathering different points of view, we first need to be enlightened by the voice of Scripture.

“Reflect” by “gathering”? Does he think like this all the time, or only when he writes?

This sentence is a non sequitur. Don’t get me wrong: Scripture is important. I would completely agree with a statement like “To fully understand the nature and applicability of blessings, we must consider what God has revealed in Scripture.”

But why would the goal of “reflecting by gathering” require us to “first be enlightened” by Scripture?

Honestly, this guy comes off like a charlatan self-help guru.

15. “May the Lord bless you and keep you. May the Lord make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you. May the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace” (Num. 6:24-26). This “priestly blessing” we find in the Old Testament, specifically in the Book of Numbers, has a “descending” character since it represents the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon man: it is one of the oldest texts of divine blessing. Then, there is a second type of blessing we find in the biblical pages: that which “ascends” from earth to heaven, toward God. Blessing in this sense amounts to praising, celebrating, and thanking God for his mercy and his faithfulness, for the wonders he has created, and for all that has come about by his will: “Bless the Lord, my soul, and all that is within me, bless his holy name!” (Ps. 103:1).

16. To God who blesses, we also respond by blessing. Melchizedek, King of Salem, blesses Abram (cf. Gen. 14:19); Rebekah is blessed by family members just before she becomes the bride of Isaac (cf. Gen. 24:60), who, in turn, blesses his son, Jacob (cf. Gen. 27:27). Jacob blesses Pharaoh (cf. Gen. 47:10), his own grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh (cf. Gen. 48:20), and his twelve sons (cf. Gen. 49:28). Moses and Aaron bless the community (cf. Ex. 39:43; Lev. 9:22). The heads of households bless their children at weddings, before embarking on a journey, and in the imminence of death. These blessings, accordingly, appear to be a superabundant and unconditional gift.

17. The blessing found in the New Testament retains essentially the same meaning it had in the Old Testament. We find the divine gift that “descends,” the human thanksgiving that “ascends,” and the blessing imparted by man that “extends” toward others. Zechariah, having regained the use of speech, blesses the Lord for his wondrous works (cf. Lk. 1:64). Simeon, while holding the newborn Jesus in his arms, blesses God for granting him the grace to contemplate the saving Messiah, and then blesses the child’s parents, Mary and Joseph (cf. Lk. 2:34). Jesus blesses the Father in the famous hymn of praise and exultation he addressed to him: “I praise you, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Mt. 11:25).

18. In continuity with the Old Testament, in Jesus as well the blessing is not only ascending, referring to the Father, but is also descending, being poured out on others as a gesture of grace, protection, and goodness. Jesus himself implemented and promoted this practice. For example, he blessed children: “And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them” (Mk. 10:16). And Jesus’ earthly journey will end precisely with a final blessing reserved for the Eleven, shortly before he ascends to the Father: “And lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven” (Lk. 24:50-51). The last image of Jesus on earth is that of his hands being raised in the act of blessing.

19. In his mystery of love, through Christ, God communicates to his Church the power to bless. Granted by God to human beings and bestowed by them on their neighbors, the blessing is transformed into inclusion, solidarity, and peacemaking.

Up to this paragraph, this section was mostly unremarkable. But then:

“...the blessing is transformed into inclusion…”? Huh? Where did he get that? These are supposed to be the highest theological and moral authorities in the Church, and they just pull the most bizarre stuff out of their ears and expect people to embrace it.

It is a positive message of comfort, care, and encouragement. The blessing expresses God’s merciful embrace and the Church’s motherhood, which invites the faithful to have the same feelings as God toward their brothers and sisters.

“The blessing expresses God’s merciful embrace…”

This is not strictly untrue...but it’s untrue if it’s being proposed as complete. The blessing does not just express, but when performed by a priest, it efficaciously confers God’s favor.

As for the part about inviting the faithful to “have the same feelings as God,”...well, that’s just stupid. God (as God) doesn’t actually have “feelings.” It’s possible that Fernandez is referring specifically to the human feelings of Jesus, but in that case, the Cardinal might want to be careful what he’s recommending: Jesus had plenty to say about chaff, undying worms, unquenched fires, and gnashing of teeth.

What we should acknowledge is that we’re invited (commanded) to will for our brothers and sisters that they plant themselves firmly in the purpose of seeking and fulfilling God’s Own will.

A Theological-Pastoral Understanding of Blessings

20. One who asks for a blessing show himself to be in need of God’s saving presence in his life and one who asks for a blessing from the Church recognizes the latter as a sacrament of the salvation that God offers.

Here’s a point not necessarily related to this declaration, but does his wording that the Church is “a sacrament of the salvation that God offers” being proposed as a distinct understanding from the doctrine that the Church is the vessel of God’s salvation? By use of the indefinite article “a,” is Fernandez suggesting that there are other sacraments “of the salvation that God offers?”

Perhaps this is just an error in translation; there are languages without definite vs. indefinite articles. But this is the wording of the English translation on the Vatican’s own website. I have to assume they have translators who know the language and would understand the implications of what they write.

To seek a blessing in the Church is to acknowledge that the life of the Church springs from the womb of God’s mercy and helps us to move forward, to live better, and to respond to the Lord’s will.

21. In order to help us understand the value of a more pastoral approach to blessings,

“More pastoral” than what? Than the reflection above, that a blessing acknowledges the Church as the instrument of salvation? More pastoral than the Church’s approach for two millennia?

I have yet to get into material of this declaration that might be specifically heretical, but I’m quite willing to believe at this point, that the document’s complete lack of clarity could be its saving grace: It can’t exactly mean something heretical if it doesn’t mean anything at all.

Pope Francis urges us to contemplate, with an attitude of faith and fatherly mercy, the fact that “when one asks for a blessing, one is expressing a petition for God’s assistance, a plea to live better, and confidence in a Father who can help us live better.”[12] 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, enclosed in its limitations.

Sure...nothing new in this part. We ask for God’s blessing from a priest because we need God’s help and a Catholic priest has the power to confer that help.

22. As St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus teaches us, this confidence “is the sole path that leads us to the Love that grants everything. With confidence, the wellspring of grace overflows into our lives [...]. It is most fitting, then, that we should place heartfelt trust not in ourselves but in the infinite mercy of a God who loves us unconditionally [...]. The sin of the world is great but not infinite, whereas the merciful love of the Redeemer is indeed infinite.”[13]

23. When considered outside of a liturgical framework, these expressions of faith are found in a realm of greater spontaneity and freedom.

What does this mean? What is a “realm” of “spontaneity and freedom,” greater or otherwise? How does the consideration of expressions of faith outside of a liturgical framework help one find them in a realm of greater spontaneity and freedom? And what does Fernandez even mean by a “liturgical framework,” when considering a person’s petition for a blessing?

I honestly don’t think this sentence has any meaning.

Nevertheless, “the optional nature of pious exercises should in no way be taken to imply an under-estimation or even disrespect for such practices. The way forward in this area requires a correct and wise appreciation of the many riches of popular piety, [and] of the potentiality of these same riches.”[14] In this way, blessings become a pastoral resource to be valued rather than a risk or a problem.

Huh? Is this a cut-and-paste mistake? This is absolutely incoherent. I can’t even figure out what there is in this paragraph to react to.

24. From the point of view of pastoral care, blessings should be evaluated as acts of devotion that “are external to the celebration of the Holy Eucharist and of the other sacraments.”

Um...I’m not sure what he means by “evaluated,” but I’m pretty sure that the fact that blessings aren’t sacraments was already covered in the whole practice of the Church, and explicitly reviewed in the Responsum that this declaration is clarifying.

But that’s not just “from the point of view of pastoral care.” That’s already part of the classical understanding of blessings of which this declaration presumes to permit broadening.

Indeed, the “language, rhythm, course, and theological emphasis” of popular piety differ “from those of the corresponding liturgical action.” For this reason, “pious practices must conserve their proper style, simplicity, and language, [and] attempts to impose forms of ‘liturgical celebration’ on them are always to be avoided.”[15]

I’m not sure what this is attempting to say. Pious practices are different from liturgical acts? OK, we know that. This appears to be saying that pious practices must never be elevated to liturgical forms. That’s an odd thing, in itself, to be worried about.

But what I suspect is going on is that Fernandez is trying to set up an argument that goes like this:

1. The sacraments are liturgical.
2. Blessings are not sacraments.
3. Therefore, popular pious petitions for blessings are not liturgical.
4. Since popular piety must be free from the imposition of liturgical forms, therefore, the blessings given in response to pious petitions must not be considered as liturgical.

Yeah, it’s pretty muddled, but par fo the course in this declaration so far.

25. The Church, moreover, must shy away from resting its pastoral praxis on the fixed nature of certain doctrinal or disciplinary schemes, especially when they lead to “a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying.”[16]

This is another bait-and-switch disingenuity, similar to the bit earlier about becoming “judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.”

Consider the earlier case: In order for the pastoral charity of the Church to include “kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement” (so Francis says) we must avoid becoming “judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.”

OK, let’s grant this as fair enough. But then in the application, a switch is made: First, the word “only” is dropped. Then the assertion is maintained (implicitly) that any act of denial, rejection, or exclusion is therefore a failure to properly express the pastoral charity that includes kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement.

So, too, for this statement. The wording indicates to shy away from “resting the pastoral praxis on the fixed nature of certain doctrinal or disciplinary schemes, especially when they lead to ‘a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism.’”

But in the application of such a principle, any pastoral praxis that is bound or limited by conformity to any doctrine or disciplinary scheme with a fixed nature (not just “certain” ones) leads to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism.

Thus, 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.

These two sentences are especially weird, indeed, since there has never been a time or climate in the Church in which it was a practice to conduct ANY moral analysis of a person who asks for a blessing or to insist on any moral perfection as a pre-requisite.

But, again, this feels very much like a disingenuous bait-and-switch. It reads as an instruction to avoid an “exhaustive moral analysis” of a person who asks for a blessing. But in the current environment, it will be treated as a prohibition against performing any moral evaluation of any situation or lifestyle upon which a person asks the Church to confer a blessing.

26. In this perspective, the Holy Father’s Respuestas aid in expanding the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 2021 pronouncement from a pastoral point of view.

One is (yet again) prompted to ask “In what perspective?” What is Fernandez talking about?

For, the Respuestas invite discernment concerning the possibility of “forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey an erroneous conception of marriage”[17] and, in situations that are morally unacceptable from an objective point of view, account for the fact that “pastoral charity requires us not to treat simply as ‘sinners’ those whose guilt or responsibility may be attenuated by various factors affecting subjective imputability.”[18]

Hmm...”forms of blessing that do not convey an erroneous conception of marriage” and “accounting for the fact that pastoral charity requires us not to treat simply as ‘sinners’…”

The attempt to bring these together into something that means anything more than the “classical understanding” of blessings is a tortured mental exercise. In reality, the paragraph above doesn’t mean anything that broadens the classical understanding of blessings or innovates the meaning of blessings.

There are already many “forms of blessing” that can be requested by one or more persons, “that do not convey an erroneous conception of marriage.”

The Church also, in its standard praxis, already accounts for the fact that “pastoral charity requires us not to treat simply as ‘sinners’ those whose guilt or responsibility may be attenuated by various factors affecting subjective imputability,” including in situations that are morally unacceptable from an objective point of view.

Cardinal Fernandez seems to believe that by placing these side-by-side, he can cause them to mean something more than they mean – that is, to indicate a call for the Church to innovate its “pastoral praxis” beyond what has been the norm for centuries.

But, in fact, there’s simply nothing in the words here that accomplish that.

27. In the catechesis cited at the beginning of this Declaration, Pope Francis proposed a description of this kind of blessing that is offered to all without requiring anything.

What kind of blessing? Fernandez has not proposed a “kind of blessing” that is distinct from the blessings that priests already give people every day. Furthermore, any person can approach a priest and ask for a blessing, and the standard practice is already to grant it without requiring anything.

There is simply nothing new that has been definitively proposed, yet. There is not even anything new proposed by Pope Francis in the “catechesis cited at the beginning of this Declaration.”

It is worth reading these words with an open heart, for they help us grasp the pastoral meaning of blessings offered without preconditions: 

This is not the first time that the term “precondition” has been brought up in this declaration.

This seems to be pointing to another subtle disingenuity on the part of Fernandez: He is using the term “precondition” in reference to a blessing. According to the actual meaning, this would refer to a requirement placed on the person requesting the blessing – a condition that such a person must meet before he can be blessed. However, I believe the intention (based on the times and the subject matter of this declaration) is to conflate the concepts of a precondition on a person and a nature of an object. Fernandez is stating that there should not be “preconditions” that a priest enforces with regards to granting a blessing to a person. However, I believe he hopes to bring about a practice in which priests, any time someone requests the he bless something, refuses to inquire into the nature of the object of the blessing.

It’s even possible that Cardinal Fernandez doesn’t understand the distinction. I am reminded of that maxim of charity: Never ascribe to malice that which can be attributed to ignorance or stupidity. 

“It is God who blesses. In the first pages of the Bible, there is a continual repetition of blessings. God blesses, but humans also give blessings, and soon it turns out that the blessing possesses a special power, which accompanies those who receive it throughout their lives, and disposes man’s heart to be changed by God. [...] So we are more important to God than all the sins we can commit because he is father, he is mother, he is pure love, he has blessed us forever. And he will never stop blessing us. 

This reads like Dr. Mason’s speech to his self-help audience in the Columbo episode, How to Dial a Murder.

It is a powerful experience to read these biblical texts of blessing in a prison or in a rehabilitation group. To make those people feel that they are still blessed, notwithstanding their serious mistakes, 

Does Pope Francis mean “unrepentant of their sins”?

that their heavenly Father continues to will their good and to hope that they will ultimately open themselves to the good. Even if their closest relatives have abandoned them, because they now judge them to be irredeemable, God always sees them as his children.”[19]

28. There are several occasions when people spontaneously ask for a blessing, whether on pilgrimages, at shrines, or even on the street when they meet a priest. By way of example, we can refer to the Book of Blessings, which provides several rites for blessing people, including the elderly, the sick, participants in a catechetical or prayer meeting, pilgrims, those embarking on a journey, volunteer groups and associations, and more. Such blessings are meant for everyone; no one is to be excluded from them. In the introduction to the Order for the Blessing of Elderly People, for example, it is stated that the purpose of this blessing is “so that the elderly themselves may receive from their brethren a testimony of respect and gratitude, while together with them, we give thanks to the Lord for the favors they received from him and for the good they did with his help.”[20] In this case, the subject of the blessing is the elderly person,

I’m pretty sure the elderly person is the object of the blessing, in this case – not the subject.

for whom and with whom thanks is being given to God for the good he has done and for the benefits received. No one can be prevented from this act of giving thanks, and each person—even if he or she lives in situations that are not ordered to the Creator’s plan—possesses positive elements for which we can praise the Lord.

Yes...each “person” exists. That is a positive element in itself. Furthermore, if a person is still living, then that person (if he is not already in a state of grace and unity with the Church) possesses the capability of turning to God through the Church for salvation. That is also a positive element. This sentence, as it stands, is merely stating the obvious. It doesn’t in any way modify or inform the concept of what a blessing is or of what are the appropriate objects of blessings.

29. From the perspective of the ascending dimension, when one becomes aware of the Lord’s gifts and his unconditional love, even in sinful situations—particularly when a prayer finds a hearing—the believer’s heart lifts its praise to God and blesses him.

Maybe...or maybe because of one’s unrepentant sinful situation, one becomes presumptuous of the Lord’s gifts and unconditional love and thereby digs himself more deeply into his sin.

No one is precluded from this type of blessing. Everyone, individually or together with others, can lift their praise and gratitude to God.

This is just stupid. This doesn’t even (as described here, in the ascending dimension of blessing) require a priest, or even another person. I can bless the Lord while lying on my bed or walking alone through my house. Why even bring this up?

Is Fernandez really so mentally deficient that he thinks the universal availability to every person, of blessing the Lord for His goodness somehow implies something new about the nature of blessings performed by a priest?

30. The popular understanding of blessings, however, also values the importance of descending blessings. While “it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops’ Conference, or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially establish procedures or rituals for all kinds of matters,”[21] pastoral prudence and wisdom—avoiding all serious forms of scandal and confusion among the faithful—may suggest that the ordained minister join in the prayer of those persons who, although in a union that cannot be compared in any way to a marriage, desire to entrust themselves to the Lord and his mercy, to invoke his help, and to be guided to a greater understanding of his plan of love and of truth.

Let’s parse this out: Pastoral prudence and wisdom may suggest that the ordained minister join in the prayer of those persons who, although in a union that cannot be compared in any way to a marriage, desire to entrust themselves to the Lord.

So, a priest might want to join in the prayer of a baseball team? That’s a union that “cannot be compared in any way to a marriage.”

That’s clearly not what Fernandez is getting at. He’s talking generally about sinful sexual relations (ongoing fornication or adultery) and specifically same-sex “unions.”

But what’s interesting is the way this is worded, or more precisely, the way it is not worded: This paragraph, which seems to lay the foundation for the next section, does not contain a suggestion that “those persons...in a union that cannot be compared in any way to a marriage” be invited into the prayer of the Church. Rather it inverts the suggestion. It proposes that a priest join in their prayer.

This is, perhaps, the innovation.

Keeping in mind that I’m recording my reactions to this document as I read it, I’ll have to read the rest of it to discern whether this is what Fernandez is really getting at. Based on this paragraph, though, it appears to me that he is proposing that a priest, even though he is an ordained minister, might feel free to step outside of his priestly role to join in the prayer of those who cannot themselves join the prayer of the Church. In such a case, a priest would not only be stepping outside of this priestly role, but even outside of his Christian calling and identity.

But if a priest were to do that, there would be no priestly efficacy to his actions. Indeed, any lay person could take such a step with identical effect, since the ordained minister in question would not be acting according to the powers of his ordination.

In this case, the conclusion would be this: That Fernandez is proposing that pastoral prudence and wisdom may suggest that the ordained minister pretend to be blessing persons who cannot themselves fully join the prayer of the Church, by himself joining their prayer? Why would such a thing be prudential and wise? Perhaps Fernandez believes that it is prudent and wise to placate a world that already hates Christ, in the hope that the world will not hate us. By creating the appearance of a blessing, an ordained minister might get the world to like us, even though it hates Christ.

I’ll call this the “ruse hermeneutic” for reading and applying this document, since according to this understanding the priest would be perpetrating a ruse on the couples he’s pretending to bless.

But, as I said, I’ll need to read the rest of the document to figure out whether it’s consistent with what he has in this paragraph.

III. Blessings of Couples in Irregular Situations and of Couples of the Same Sex

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.

“Within the horizon outlined here…”

This means within the concept of a priest joining such a couple in their prayer, without presuming to invite that couple (as a couple) into the prayer of the Church, which they are incapable of joining as a couple.

This would also appear to mean that the descending nature of the blessing (that is, from God, through the Church and specifically the priest as an ordained minister of the Church, to the couple) is purely a mirage—an illusion created by the participation of the priest in the prayer of the couple.

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, 

Again, interesting wording: Fernandez says the blessing ”has an ascending value,” but does not make any claim of descending value.

He only refers to the “invocation” of a blessing that descends from God, but there is no claim, here, that such an invocation is efficacious.

So far, this blessing is consistent with the “ruse hermeneutic” that I proposed above.

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.

Again...these forms of blessing “express a supplication that God may grant...actual grace” but it is not claimed here that they are efficacious in obtaining actual grace, as a priestly blessing is.

Since the priestly power of ordination does not appear to be an active principle in the type of blessing being described, the disposition of the priest imparting the blessing will affect the favor obtained from God. In this case, the same blessing could be imparted by a lay person, with the same effect.

32. Indeed, the grace of God works in the lives of those who do not claim to be righteous but who acknowledge themselves humbly as sinners, like everyone else.

This sentence doesn’t seem to apply to those discussed above—those who “do not claim a legitimation of their own status.” Those in a sinful relationship, regardless of whether they claim a legitimation of their own status, who nonetheless intend to persist in that relationship (or “status’) are not acknowledging themselves humbly as sinners.

To acknowledge oneself humbly as a sinner is to accept that one must stop sinning (that is, make an ongoing good faith effort to not sin) or miss out on the blessings of God.

This grace can orient everything according to the mysterious and unpredictable designs of God. Therefore, with its untiring wisdom and motherly care, the Church welcomes all who approach God with humble hearts, accompanying them with those spiritual aids that enable everyone to understand and realize God’s will fully in their existence.[22]

This is another throw-away paragraph. What does this have to do with the subject matter of this declaration?

33. This is a blessing that, although not included in any liturgical rite,[23] unites intercessory prayer with the invocation of God’s help by those who humbly turn to him. God never turns away anyone who approaches him! Ultimately, a blessing offers people a means to increase their trust in God. The request for a blessing, thus, expresses and nurtures openness to the transcendence, mercy, and closeness to God in a thousand concrete circumstances of life, which is no small thing in the world in which we live. It is a seed of the Holy Spirit that must be nurtured, not hindered.

Other than the first sentence, this seems like a “say-nothing” paragraph. That is, it says nothing that is not already obvious.

The first sentence is odd...”unites intercessory prayer with the invocation of God’s help.”

Think about this phrase. Intercessory prayer just means someone else is praying for you. We do that all the time: “Hey, my wife is having surgery next week, will you pray for her?” “Your brother lost his job? Oh, man, I’ll say some prayers for him!”

An invocation of God’s help just means asking God for help – prayer of petition.

So to “unite intercessory prayer with the invocation of God’s help” just means getting someone else to ask God for His help for you in prayer. To say, “this is a blessing that unites intercessory prayer with the invocation of God’s help,” is simply to say that this kind of blessing means getting someone else to pray to God for you.

This further implicates this declaration according to my ruse hermeneutic.

34. The Church’s liturgy itself invites us to adopt this trusting attitude, even in the midst of our sins, lack of merits, weaknesses, and confusions, as witnessed by this beautiful Collect from the Roman Missal: “Almighty ever-living God, who in the abundance of your kindness surpass the merits and the desires of those who entreat you, pour out your mercy upon us to pardon what conscience dreads and to give what prayer does not dare to ask” (Collect for the Twenty-Seventh Sunday of Ordinary Time). How often, through a pastor’s simple blessing, which does not claim to sanction or legitimize anything, can people experience the nearness of the Father, beyond all “merits” and “desires”?

This is another odd phrase: “a pastor’s simple blessing, which does not claim to sanction or legitimize anything.” Well, the blessing itself doesn’t “claim,” but the blessing is conferred with the understanding that the recipient of the blessing is desirous of living the full life of the Church, free some sin, and is committed to doing what he can to grow in that life. The priest doesn’t inquire or judge the presence of such intentions prior to giving a simple blessing, but the value of such a blessing presupposes such intentions.

35. Therefore, the pastoral sensibility of ordained ministers should also be formed to perform blessings spontaneously that are not found in the Book of Blessings.

Huh?

There is a big difference between a priest “performing blessings spontaneously that are not found in the Book of Blessings” and a priest stepping out of his ordained role to join in the prayer of those who cannot themselves join in the prayer of the Church.

I’ll also renew my question: Is there even any value in performing blessings “not found in the Book of Blessings?” Doesn’t the Book of Blessings contain general-purpose blessings for any time a priest wants to bless something that can legitimately be an object of blessing?

36. In this sense, it is essential to grasp the Holy Father’s concern that these non-ritualized blessings never cease being simple gestures that provide an effective means of increasing trust in God on the part of the people who ask for them,

This would seem to reinforce my contention that the “blessings” being innovated in this declaration are not actual blessings, but merely facades to look like blessings.

careful that they should not become a liturgical or semi-liturgical act, similar to a sacrament. Indeed, such a ritualization would constitute a serious impoverishment because it would subject a gesture of great value in popular piety to excessive control, depriving ministers of freedom and spontaneity in their pastoral accompaniment of people’s lives.

37. In this regard, there come to mind the following words of the Holy Father, already quoted in part: “Decisions that may be part of pastoral prudence in certain circumstances should not necessarily become a norm. That is to say, it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops’ Conference, or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially establish procedures or rituals for all kinds of matters […]. Canon Law should not and cannot cover everything, nor should the Episcopal Conferences claim to do so with their various documents and protocols, since the life of the Church flows through many channels besides the normative ones.”[24] Thus Pope Francis recalled that “what is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances cannot be elevated to the level of a rule” because this “would lead to an intolerable casuistry.”[25]

This is another paragraph that seems to have little to do with the declaration itself. It’s also largely nonsense. It doesn’t convey anything. It’s a bit like pointing out that it would be inappropriate for a state’s Department of Natural Resources to exercise immediate control over the placement and growth of every tree in the state. Once can’t argue with it, but one also can’t do anything with it.

38. For this reason, one should neither provide for nor promote a ritual for the blessings of couples in an irregular situation.

“For this reason?” Really?

The reason was already soundly set forth in the Responsum that this declaration claims to clarify.

At the same time, one should not prevent or prohibit the Church’s closeness to people in every situation in which they might seek God’s help through a simple blessing. In a brief prayer preceding this spontaneous blessing, the ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance—but also God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely.

What drivel!

This is like saying: One should neither provide for nor promote the wholesale flooding of populated towns for the purpose of building lakes. At the same time, one should not prevent or prohibit children from playing in sprinklers. The two have nothing to do with each other.

39. In any case, precisely to avoid any form of confusion or scandal, when the prayer of blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation, even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding.The same applies when the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple.

Given that this entire declaration, up to now, seems to be an attempt to get the world to like us better, this paragraph seems like legalese intended to avoid a “cake” situation against the Church.

40. Such a blessing may instead find its place in other contexts, such as a visit to a shrine, a meeting with a priest, a prayer recited in a group, or during a pilgrimage. Indeed, through these blessings that are given not through the ritual forms proper to the liturgy but as an expression of the Church’s maternal heart—similar to those that emanate from the core of popular piety—there is no intention to legitimize anything, but rather to open one’s life to God, to ask for his help to live better, and also to invoke the Holy Spirit so that the values of the Gospel may be lived with greater faithfulness.

So, a priest who is asked to bless a same-sex couple could run with something like “May you be led away from your sinful life together, so that you may receive salvation in the bosom of the Church, outside of which no salvation is possible. And may Almighty God bless you. Amen.”

41. What has been said in this Declaration regarding the blessings of same-sex couples is sufficient to guide the prudent and fatherly discernment of ordained ministers in this regard. Thus, beyond the guidance provided above, no further responses should be expected about possible ways to regulate details or practicalities regarding blessings of this type.[26]

By “blessings of this type,” does Fernandez mean blessings of same-sex couples? Blessings that are not priestly in nature (and therefore not efficacious)? Blessings that are ruses, meant to trick the world into liking us?

IV. The Church is the Sacrament of God’s Infinite Love

42. The Church continues to lift up those prayers and supplications that Christ himself—with loud cries and tears—offered in his earthly life (cf. Heb. 5:7), and which enjoy a special efficacy for this reason. In this way, “not only by charity, example, and works of penance, but also by prayer does the ecclesial community exercise a true maternal function in bringing souls to Christ.”[27]

43. The Church is thus the sacrament of God’s infinite love. Therefore, even when a person’s relationship with God is clouded by sin, he can always ask for a blessing, stretching out his hand to God, as Peter did in the storm when he cried out to Jesus, “Lord, save me!” (Mt. 14:30). Indeed, desiring and receiving a blessing can be the possible good in some situations. Pope Francis reminds us that “a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties.”[28] In this way, “what shines forth is the beauty of the saving love of God made manifest in Jesus Christ, who died and rose from the dead.”[29]

44. Any blessing will be an opportunity for a renewed proclamation of the kerygma, an invitation to draw ever closer to the love of Christ. As Pope Benedict XVI taught, “Like Mary, the Church is the mediator of God’s blessing for the world: she receives it in receiving Jesus and she transmits it in bearing Jesus. He is the mercy and the peace that the world, of itself, cannot give, and which it needs always, at least as much as bread.”[30]

45. Taking the above points into account and following the authoritative teaching of Pope Francis, this Dicastery finally wishes to recall that “the root of Christian meekness” is “the ability to feel blessed and the ability to bless [...]. This world needs blessings, and we can give blessings and receive blessings. The Father loves us, and the only thing that remains for us is the joy of blessing him, and the joy of thanking him, and of learning from him […] to bless.”[31] In this way, every brother and every sister will be able to feel that, in the Church, they are always pilgrims, always beggars, always loved, and, despite everything, always blessed.

This entire section is throw-away fluff. It doesn’t add anything to the declaration.

Víctor Manuel Card. Fernández
Prefect

Mons. Armando MATTEO
Secretary for the Doctrinal Section

Ex Audientia Die   18 December 2023
Francis

[1] Francis, Catechesis on Prayer: The Blessing (2 December 2020).

[2] Cf. Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, «Responsum» ad «dubium» de benedictione unionem personarum eiusdem sexus et Nota esplicativa (15 March 2021): AAS 113 (2021), 431-434.

[3] Francis, Ap. Exhort. Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), no. 42: AAS 105 (2013), 1037-1038.

[4] Cf. Francis, Respuestas a los Dubia propuestos por dos Cardenales (11 July 2023).

[5] Ibid., ad dubium 2, c.

[6] Ibid., ad dubium 2, a.

[7] Cfr. Rituale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Ioannis Pauli PP. II promulgatum, De Benedictionibus, Praenotanda, Editio typica, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano 2013, no. 12.

[8] Ibid., no. 11: “Quo autem clarius hoc pateat, antiqua ex traditione, formulae benedictionum eo spectant ut imprimis Deum pro eius donis glorificent eiusque impetrent beneficia atque maligni potestatem in mundo compescant.”

[9] Ibid., no. 15: “Quare illi qui benedictionem Dei per Ecclesiam expostulant, dispositiones suas ea fide confirment, cui omnia sunt possibilia; spe innitantur, quae non confundit; caritate praesertim vivificentur, quae mandata Dei servanda urget.”

[10] Ibid., no. 13: “Semper ergo et ubique occasio praebetur Deum per Christum in Spiritu Sancto laudandi, invocandi eique gratias reddendi, dummodo agatur de rebus, locis, vel adiunctis quae normae vel spiritui Evangelii non contradicant.”

[11] Francis, Respuestas a los Dubia propuestos por dos Cardenales, ad dubium 2, d.

[12] Ibid., ad dubium 2, e.

[13] Francis, Ap. Exhort. C’est la Confiance (15 October 2023), nos. 2, 20, 29.

[14] Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy. Principles and Guidelines (9 April 2002), no. 12.

[15] Ibid., no. 13.

[16] Francis, Exhort. Ap. Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), no. 94: AAS 105 (2013), 1060.

[17] Francis, Respuestas a los Dubia propuestos por dos Cardenales, ad dubium 2, e.

[18] Ibid., ad dubium 2, f.

[19] Francis, Catechesis on Prayer: The Blessing (2 December 2020).

[20] De Benedictionibus, no. 258: “Haec benedictio ad hoc tendit ut ipsi senes a fratribus testimonium accipiant reverentiae grataeque mentis, dum simul cum ipsis Domino gratias reddimus pro beneficiis ab eo acceptis et pro bonis operibus eo adiuvante peractis.”

[21] Francis, Respuestas a los Dubia propuestos por dos Cardenales, ad dubium 2, g.

[22] Cf. Francis, Post-Synodal Ap. Exhort. Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), no. 250: AAS 108 (2016), 412-413.

[23] Cf. Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy (9 April 2002), no. 13: “The objective difference between pious exercises and devotional practices should always be clear in expressions of worship. [...] Acts of devotion and piety are external to the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, and of the other sacraments.”

[24] Francis, Respuestas a los Dubia propuestos por dos Cardenales, ad dubium 2, g.

[25] Francis, Post-Synodal Ap. Exhort. Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016), no. 304: AAS 108 (2016), 436.

[26] Cf. ibid.

[27]Officium Divinum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum, Liturgia Horarum iuxta Ritum Romanum, Institutio Generalis de Liturgia Horarum, Editio typica altera, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano 1985, no. 17: “Itaque non tantum caritate, exemplo et paenitentiae operibus, sed etiam oratione ecclesialis communitas verum erga animas ad Christum adducendas maternum munus exercet.”

[28] Francis, Ap. Exhort. Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), no. 44: AAS 105 (2013), 1038-1039.

[29] Ibid., no. 36: AAS 105 (2013), 1035.

[30] Benedict XVI, Homily on the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. 45th World Day of Peace, Vatican Basilica (1 January 2012): Insegnamenti VIII, 1 (2012), 3.

[31] Francis, Catechesis on Prayer: The Blessing (2 December 2020). 
 

In fine:

I am persuaded that my “ruse hermeneutic” is the correct one for understanding this document. It does not seem to offer any other. Indeed, there does not seem to be any claim throughout the document that the fact of ordination of a minister in any way contributes to the value of or enters into the meaning of the blessings put forth in this document for same-sex couples or others who remain obstinately outside of the life of the Church.

To clarify, the “ruse hermeneutic” means that this document is proposing, under the umbrella of the term “blessing,” a new kind of action. This kind of action is really just a priest (and, by extension, the whole Church) perpetrating a ruse against a same-sex couple (and, by extension, the world), whereby they are fooled into believing that they are receiving a blessing of the Church, which in fact they are not receiving any blessing at all.

Setting aside the content of this declaration and its groveling posture towards the values of the world—the world that hates Christ, I’m flabbergasted at the amount of writing that went into saying as little as this document says. Even more, I’m offended by its disingenuity and not a little fearful concerning what may befall the Church in the coming decade if this is to be typical of the thinking process and writing style of her leaders.