Pope Francis approved a document in 2023 that allows for “the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex”[1] The inclusion of the word, possibility, is important because it gives priests (and their bishops) whose stances on morality are socially conservative an out. That irregular situations are included in the statement—although admittedly they are distinct from “couples of the same sex”—is a hint that the statement would likely be controversial and taken at least by some clergy negatively. So that the document gives the clergy discretion is no small matter. It also matters because of the emotional vulnerability that is entailed in requesting a blessing. At the time, the Church was still being impacted by having been recognized, and thus stigmatized, as the cause of the emotional damage that had been inflicted on children by pedophile clergy over decades. In fact, the resulting declining church attendance may have gone into the motivation for the statement. The document's overarching pastoral purpose in blessing gay couples over conducting a moral critique of homosexuality shows not only how much Pope Francis differed as of 2023 from his predecessor, but also how very much the atrocities against children had changed the orientation of the Vatican. To the extent that a significant number of the pedophile priests and bishops had molested (and were still molesting) boys, any moral critiques getting in the way of blessing loving gay relationships would suffer from a lack of credibility in the face of dripping irony and sordid hypocrisy. Even so, the document can be criticized for failing to distinguish moral from theological critiques of male homosexuality—an oversight mitigated by that fact that the pastoral purpose of the letter subordinates even a theological assessment, for, as Paul wrote, faith without love, especially love whose object is not convenient, is for naught.
It should be stated at the outset
that no cleric should be forced, even by the Pope, to give a blessing against the dictates of conscience, for surely intention matters both in the giving and the receiving
of a blessing. Mitigating the likelihood of being forced, conservative clergy
may actually not find the document, and thus giving such blessings, to be as
objectionable as might be presumed from the immediate sensationalistic
journalistic reports. For one thing, the blessings “must be non-liturgical in nature
and should not be conferred at the same time as a civil union.”[2]
Church was still maintaining that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a
woman. Furthermore, homosexual conduct was still considered to be a sin.
The document is thus not
revolutionary even within the Roman Catholic Church. The underlying motive is
pastoral, based in the magisterium (teachings) of the Church, rather than doctrinal
from scripture. In other words, the blessings on same-sex couples can be approached
as a means of ministering to human beings in their hurt and yearning for God’s
presence, rather than as giving religious legitimacy to homosexual conduct. A
request for a blessing can be viewed as a response to the human condition that
seeks to transcend itself, including all the concrete situations that we face. Sexual
conduct is such a situation, and so it too can be transcended, including when
requesting a blessing. Even the love that two people have for each other is
deeper than the sexual relations, and yearning for God’s presence—God’s love—relativizes
even interpersonal love.
Nevertheless, a priest (or bishop)
may view the document as giving permission to bless a sin. The document attempts
to deal with this objection by stressing that no ideology should be an obstacle
in the way of a person wanting to feel a connection with God via a blessing by
a priest. That is to say, a priest’s ideology should not be an obstacle to a
same-sex couple requesting blessing. There are, however, some problems.
Firstly, the document itself contains
a contradiction that could give a moral critique from an ideological standpoint
some legs. On the one hand, the document recognizes a role for “the prudent and
fatherly discernment of ordained ministers.”[3]
However, the document also states that “requests for such blessings for
same-sex couples should not be denied.”[4]
In the daylight between this language, same-sex couples requesting a blessing could
be confronted with ideological prejudice. Priestly discernment, being
expressly granted, can find an indirect way to justify denying a blessing. For
example, a social-conservative priest could simply discern that a couple
has not prayed enough to be ready to receive a blessing, even though prayer is
not a precondition (but most lay Catholics wouldn’t know that).
Secondly, although the document
does warn clergy against denials based on technicalities, including those based
on ethical analysis, a theological, non-moral rationale exists that conservative
clergy could use. “When people ask for a blessing, an exhaustive moral analysis
should not be placed as a precondition for conferring it.”[5]
The pastoral intent behind the document relativizes the moral dimension, but
what about the theological dimension itself?
Religion, and thus theology, do
not reduce to morality, though in Christianity (and Judaism) the relationship
is complex. Divine decrees are not subject to moral constraints; otherwise, as
Kierkegaard points out in Fear and Trembling, Abraham would be guilty of
attempted murder in raising the knife above Isaac. So divine decrees trump
countervailing ethical principles. Theology transcends morality because the
anchor being sought transcends the limits of human cognition, perception, and
sentiments.[6]
Where divine decrees are consistent with, and indeed even have moral
content, however, such as five do in the Ten Commandments, morality is given
theological legitimacy rather than relegated as subordinate. None of ten
commandments, and neither of the two given by Jesus in the Gospels, are on
homosexual relations. In fact, Jesus doesn’t discuss homosexuality.
We have to go back to Deuteronomy to find a divine prohibition on male homosexuality, but even there, the point is theological rather than moral. Although this supports the document’s prohibition of moral critique, the document does not confront the theological point being made in Deuteronomy. Looking over the list that is given in that book of things that God dislikes (i.e., abominations), we find items that do not have moral (or immoral) content. Eating shell fish, for example, is included on the list as an abomination. Contrary to the popular view, an abomination is not necessary something that is very, very immoral. Rather, an abomination is simply something that God dislikes. That renders the list theological in nature. Male sodomy (but not lesbianism) is included on the list. On this basis, clergy have a theological rather than a moral basis to use their discretion to refuse to provide a blessing.
To be sure, a biblical hermeneutic
(i.e., method for interpreting biblical passages) could be used to get behind
the scripture. A cleric could conclude that male homosexuality was deemed culturally
immoral when Deuteronomy was written, and that the social ethic was simply
given divine credibility. Similarly, the military attack on Jerico could have
been legitimated by writing that Yahweh ordered that even the women and
children be killed. Without going “behind” scripture to speculate, a priest
would be justified in concluding that a theological rather than an ethical
reason exists for not blessing same-sex male couples. The document does not
take on this point, but an effort is made to transcend it by emphasizing a pastoral
goal in dealing with sinners.
The document emphasizes the fact that sinners generally have need of God. In the Gospels, Jesus says he came for the sinners. In fact, he puts them ahead of the self-righteous in getting into the Kingdom of God. Accordingly, the document states: “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.”[7] Were active sin a block to blessings, then nobody would be able to receive blessings. Clerical picking and choosing among sins, isolating abortion and homosexuality for special treatment, suggests the presence of human ideology. Ideological discernment is a very different thing than theological discernment. All too often, the two are conflated by clerics who would perhaps fit better running for a political office than saying Mass. God’s grace works even in sinners, regardless of the particular sin being committed. Doing something that God does not like does not cut oneself off from God’s grace. By analogy, friendships are not typically ended just because one person does something that the other person doesn’t like. Put another way, love is stronger than likes (and dislikes).
Similar to how love is not
inconsistent with dislikes, wanting to be blessed, even if in a particular
situation on the surface of life, is essentially a yearning to transcend. According
to the document, “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.”[8]
Concrete circumstances are superficial relative to the yearning for
experiential grounding to something that is solid rather than conditional. Such
yearning is the seed of the Holy Spirit, which, according to the document,
“must be nurtured, not hindered.”[9]
Moral critique hinders. Ideology hinders. Even dislikes hinder. The Church’s
clergy should themselves be oriented to transcendence where the reference point
(i.e., God) lies beyond the limits of human cognition, perception, and emotions.
It is therefore not by accident
that the document states that the Church must castigate rather than perpetuate
its own “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.”[10]
With energies dissipated thusly, nothing is left with which to love the sinner.
To be sure, sin snuffs out God, but sin does not fit so conveniently into a
particular social ethic—as if humans were divine law-givers. Even amid sin, a
person can be redeemed from its grasp. Even while within it, 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,” the document states.[11]
In providing a blessing, a priest is merely pointing hands in a transcendental
direction. This is hardly to sanction conduct on the surface.
Therefore, sin does not reduce to immorality as defined by any particular ideology. Even if conduct taken to be immoral is further taken as indicative of sin, as something that is disliked by God, the sinner can ask God for help. To stand in the way of such a request, in which a creature renders itself vulnerable in a fundamental, existential sense, is itself blameworthy both ethically (because harm is being caused) and as a sin because blocking someone’s yearning for God is ironically to push oneself away from God. Surely God dislikes that, but even such a priest is not cut off from God’s grace. In the end, we are all struggling creatures falling short and yet we all have the amazing ability to yearn for existential transcendence.
2. Nicole Winfield and David Crary, “Pope Approves Blessings for Same-Sex Couples If the Rituals Don’t Resemble Marriage,” The Huffington Post, December 18, 2023.
3. Christopher Lamb, “Pope Francis Authorizes Blessings for Same-Sex Couples,” CNN.com, December 18, 2023.
4. Nicole Winfield and David Crary, “Pope Approves Blessings for Same-Sex Couples If the Rituals Don’t Resemble Marriage,” The Huffington Post, December 18, 2023.
5. Christopher Lamb, “Pope Francis Authorizes Blessings for Same-Sex Couples,” CNN.com, December 18, 2023.
6. Here I am borrowing from Pseudo-Dionysius on the transcendence of God.
7. Christopher Lamb, “Pope Francis Authorizes Blessings for Same-Sex Couples,” CNN.com, December 18, 2023.
8. Nicole Winfield and David Crary, “Pope Approves Blessings for Same-Sex Couples If the Rituals Don’t Resemble Marriage,” The Huffington Post, December 18, 2023.
9. Ibid.
