The document Fiducia supplicans (FS) of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) claims that priests may, in certain circumstances, give blessings to “couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples” (Víctor Manuel Cardinal Fernández, “Presentation”; FS 31). The qualifying circumstances include the following factors: scandal must be avoided (FS 30, 39), the blessing is to be informal and not performed in a liturgical setting (FS 9-11, 23-24, 31-39), and the blessing must neither lead to confusion (FS 5) nor signal a change in the Church’s moral teaching (Fernández, “Presentation,”; FS 3, 4).
Could there be any scenarios in which all these qualifying circumstances are realized? Leaving this difficulty aside here, I argue that it would always be wrong to give a blessing to such couples, unless perhaps, in addition to the above-mentioned circumstances, the couple is heterosexual, there are dependent children of the couple, and the man and woman promise to live as brother and sister until their situation is regularized.
The nature of blessings
FS includes a helpful set of reflections on the various kinds and parts of blessings (a descending gift from God, an ascending prayer of praise or thanksgiving to God, and an extending of blessing towards another). In this essay, I focus on the descending aspect. A blessing is chiefly (as a descending reality) a gift of divine assistance in the present for the ultimate good of the recipient. As such, a blessing is a means to an end. The ultimate end of any blessing is of course eternal salvation, but the proximate end is some present good suitable for the journey to heaven. A blessing targets the recipient either simply as a person—called to be a son or daughter of God—or according to some special aspect, activity, or purpose in life. If the blessing targets a special activity, it gives wings, so to speak, to the person in that activity, approving it and assisting it.
God loves us sinners and thus wills our eternal salvation. Since his blessing is an assistance to that end, he extends his blessing to benefit, not to hinder, the recipient. Morally good activity is good for us, but morally evil activity is destructive of us. So, God blesses us in or for our good actions but never blesses us in or for our evil actions. God never aids and abets morally evil activity. Were he to do so, he would predestine (prepare) the sinner for misery and damnation, because the end of sin is death (Rom 6:21). But God loves everything that he has made (Wis 11:24).
Those who petition God for a blessing should observe the wisdom of divine love. To petition a blessing upon someone for some special purpose or activity is to cooperate formally with that person in that purpose or activity. So, those who petition have an obligation to refuse a blessing to someone asking for a blessing under a special aspect or activity or purpose which is patently evil. In any case, God is not a clericalist and would not bless the evil aspect or activity. Thus, there is a tacit obligation to consider what is being asked and render a reasonable judgment, as we can see with the following examples. If a member of the KKK asked for a blessing upon his activity as part of the clan, the priest would be obliged to refuse.
A group of two or more sometimes asks for and receives a blessing. What is being blessed in these cases? The group’s existence is grounded in that of the individuals, not as individuals but as they are ordered together. The group has cohesion precisely in virtue of its defining activity and end. So, a blessing comes down upon the individuals as members of the group. When two or more persons as a group present themselves for a blessing, they highlight the unity, activity, and end of their group as the precise aspect under which the blessing is to be conferred. Thus, the members are asking for a blessing upon the chief or defining act of their group. If that chief action is good, a blessing is good. If that chief action is evil, to bless the group is to cooperate formally in the evil. God does not approve and assist evil activity; so, he would never bless any group whose defining activity or end is evil, much less gravely evil.
How Fiducia supplicans views couples and blessings
On the basis of the foregoing principles, we can evaluate the document FS. In its climactic paragraph, it states, “Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex” (FS 31). Clearly, FS is here treating persons as partners. Thus, it is treating them under a special aspect, namely, as being partners in various kinds of non-marital sexual relationship: unmarried, adulterous, and homosexual. By “sexual relationship” I mean sexually active. When the document presents, as potential recipients of blessings, persons as partners in the aforesaid relationships, it is necessarily—despite any well-intentioned aims or wishful thinking to the contrary—targeting as an aspect of the object of blessing the defining or integral activity of these relationships. That defining or integral activity involves the use of the sexual faculties.
But, according to the perennial and infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium, the use of the sexual faculties in any of these relationships in any non-marital relationship is intrinsically and gravely evil. (FS understates this teaching as follows: only in a valid, heterosexual marriage do sexual relations “find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning” (FS 4). Since the document treats the partners precisely under the aspect of the relationship, whose defining activity is intrinsically and gravely evil, it includes in the scope of the blessing an object that may not be blessed.
The problem is worse. The persons in these relationships have committed themselves to gravely sinful ways of life. They do not merely succumb to a temptation in a moment, even though that would be gravely evil also. Rather, they embrace a sinful way of life. Such a state of life involves habitual refusal to repent, a state of impenitence. In this state, the sinner stands opposed to the fruition of divine grace in his soul. Hardened, he is less likely to repent. To affirm and assist the sinner in this very state is thus to lead him away from the divine mercy, and to bless such relationships is to affirm and assist sinners in this very state.
An impenitent sinner may for a time retain the divine faith. However, he cannot long maintain the cognitive dissonance. To embrace a sinful state of life is to embark on a trajectory that culminates in the attempt to falsify the moral truth. The sinner does not simply turn his mind away from the moral truth in order to indulge here-and-now in the vice; rather, he proceeds to convince himself that this kind of activity is not intrinsically evil. We have seen the trajectory of this march towards deception with the acceptance of no-fault divorce and gay “marriage.” Today, we see the push to criminalize those who tell the truth about the sex and gender. Truth opposes the lie, while proponents of the lie bear real, if implicit, malice towards those who preach and witness to the truth (Wis 2:12, 19f). Such a state of deception and hardness, including hatred of the true and the good and the beautiful, anticipates final damnation.
One could raise various objections to my thesis. First, I have failed to countenance FS’s distinction between a liturgical blessing and a spontaneous, non-ritualized blessing. Let us peruse the application of this distinction. A key passage reads, “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” FS 11). This is a puzzling statement. Does it mean that the Church does have the power to impart a non-liturgical blessing even under such circumstances? One would hardly think so. But since not, how is the distinction salient?
Reasonably, FS claims that a non-liturgical blessing involves “a realm of greater spontaneity and freedom” (FS 12). But what is the scope of this freedom? Another crucial passage reads, “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” (FS 9?). Does this mean that a non-liturgical blessing can be given to an object that is not conformed to God’s will? And what is it that can deviate from God’s will? Strictly speaking, only freely acting persons (or their free actions) can deviate from God’s will. So, can sinners be blessed? As persons, yes, we can; God blesses us sinners, provided we desire to be conformed to his will.
But does God bless us as sinners, as we intend to sin? No, for he does not approve and cooperate with evil. God blesses no one under the aspect of deviation from the divine will. He never blesses moral evil in any circumstance. So, FS’s appeal to an informal, non-ritualized, extra-liturgical blessing is beside the point.
Second, what about the “other-centered” character of these relationships? Can we not bracket the acts of fornication or adultery or sodomy, put these to the side, and consider the various other activities in the day-to-day lives of those in such relationships? For example, can we not consider how the partners comport themselves at the dinner table? Is there not a rich tapestry of action that we can affirm and bless? If so, can we not find some matter in some such couple by which we could non-liturgically bless that particular couple as a couple (FS 31)? Would not such a blessing be for the partners’ good and lead to their repentance from fornication, adultery, or sodomy (FS 40)?
The nature of morally good acts
To tackle this question, we must first consider whether any of the acts of the partners can be morally good. Second, if some acts of the partners can be good, let us consider whether the relationship as a whole can be blessed in light of these possible acts. Can any of the acts of these partners be morally good?
By “morally good act,” I mean an act that is good at least on the natural level. A human act, an act freely chosen, is either morally good or morally evil. An act can be morally good even though not supernatural, i.e., even though not an act of charity. Someone who is not in the state of grace can do morally good acts; not all acts of one in the state of sin are themselves sinful or morally evil. The Nazi doctor can tuck his children into bed at night. This act is not evil, although his work as a Nazi doctor is. However, all acts that are ordered to an evil end participate in the sinful nature of the end. The Nazi doctor cleaning his death equipment or writing down a list of innocents whom to persecute or kill is not doing morally good acts even on the natural level.
Now, some acts intrinsically bear an order to a certain end. Acts such as foreplay are of their essence ordered to the sexual act. If for persons engaging in foreplay the sexual act is fornication, adultery, or sodomy, then the foreplay itself participates in the sinful character of the end. Other acts are naturally orderable to the sexual act, such as a basic kiss and similar signs of affection and romantic tenderness. When these acts naturally orderable to the sexual act are expressed in a relationship whose defining act is the sexual act, they are almost invariably inflected with respect to the habitual character of the relationship. Thus, one cannot reasonably deny that they are almost always concretely ordered to the relationship as a sexual relationship. And all acts ordered to the relationship as sexual participate in the sinful character of the relationship. It is simply delusional to think that an adulterer’s running his hands through his mistress’s hair, buying her flowers or diamonds, or stroking her arms are not acts ordered to the relationship as sexual. It is delusional to think that such touches are like the morally good acts of massage therapy or that such gifts are like those given by morally upright people courting or validly married spouses.
However, there are other acts which, while capable of being ordered to the relationship as sexual, are conceivably willed in morally good ways. One might consider, for example, how well they tend the garden, how nicely the house is decorated, their vigorous discussion of the real antagonist in The Illiad, hiking in the mountains, quality work in the workplace, care in cooking, etc. One can even consider heroic acts. If one of the partners takes the other to the hospital or takes physical care of the other during a major illness, these are morally good acts on the natural level, provided they are not ordered to the relationship as sexual. Given the habitual state of impenitence of these partners, however, the presumption would be that none of these acts is an act of charity unless there has been a real act of repentance.
Does the existence of morally good acts in the context of a sinful relationship give sufficient grounds to bless the relationship? It does not. Once again, to bless the relationship is to bless the precise aspect under which the persons are partners in the relationship. That aspect necessarily includes the sexual act, which in these cases is gravely evil. Thus, although there are good elements in the lives of those living habitually and impenitently in an objectively sinful state, these elements do not warrant a blessing on the sinful relationship itself. In fact, the foregoing analysis showed that only acts not ordered to the relationship as sexual can be good.
Thus, these good elements are precisely distinguished from the sinful relationship itself. They are, as such, the stuff of a possibly virtuous relationship between the members of the couple, provided that each of them repents of the sin that is integral to the very character of the relationship as sexual. Thus, there are no grounds to bless any irregular or same-sex relationship. Pretending that there are grounds—by abstracting these conceivably separable elements and considering them in isolation as good things—is to miss the forest for the trees. But the forest, the objectively gravely evil way of life these partners embrace, is an obstacle to their eternal salvation. Repenting from the sin definitive of this situation remains the most urgent act for them.
Disordered acts and “good elements”
Unfortunately, the western culture and even members of the hierarchy are examining the matter chiefly with the eyes of emotional sensitivity rooted in the flesh. They judge that such relationships are good, if (perhaps) less than fully mature. The Swiss episcopal conference has posted a picture of two men gazing at each other in the eyes romantically, poised for a kiss. The picture does not highlight the sinful nature of the gay lifestyle but brazenly, though vainly, attempts to isolate the “romantic” precursors to sodomy and portray them in a good light.
The truth is otherwise. The act integral to and definitive of a same-sex relationship is sodomy, an unnatural and gravely evil sin, to which Pope St. Pius V referred as “that horrible crime, for which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation” (Pius V, Horrendum illud scelus). The acts naturally orderable to sodomy—such as those suggested in the Swiss episcopal conference picture—have a gravely evil and disordered act as their natural end. Thus, these acts are themselves disordered. It is delusion to think that the “romantic” tenderness of two men or two women is a good thing. To the contrary, it is an affectivity discolored by the failure to embody the heterosexual nature of genuine sexual affection.
Since God loves those struggling with homosexual tendencies, he does not aid and abet them in their sins, neither in the climactic act nor in the acts ordered to it or inflected with reference to it. Thus, he does not bless sodomy or relationships defined by sodomy. God does bless sinners; he blesses the individuals who are in same-sex relationships. What is the good and the purpose of such blessings? The proximate end is some temporal good as orderable to the end of eternal life. Since sodomy is opposed to the moral good and eternal life, true divine blessings have an intrinsic tendency to bring about repentance from the sin of sodomy, the amendment of life, and perseverance unto glory.
By implication, the blessings have an intrinsic tendency to upend the entire character of the relationship as sexual and all the acts ordered to it. It is misleading to describe such an upending and totally reconfiguring act as “maturation,” as FS implicitly does (FS 31). Indeed, drug addicts do well to distance themselves from people, places, and things associated with their addiction. Sexual relationships which cannot possibly be morally good (same-sex relationships) or cannot in the foreseeable circumstances be good (adulterous relationships) call for such distancing.
Were God to bless two persons as a same-sex couple, he would approve and further the act integral to and definitive of a same-sex relationship. He would obstruct the path of the partners to genuine happiness and salvation. Were a priest or deacon to beseech God’s blessing upon two persons as members of a same-sex relationship, he would be acting as though God called evil good (Is 5:20). He would deceive the couple and any witnesses present, making access to and the application of divine mercy that much more difficult.
To act as though a blessing could target the members as members but only insofar as their sinful relationship happens to have good elements in it, all the while wearing blinders with respect to the sin integral to the relationship as sexual, would be like trying to play Milton Bradley’s Operation with pliars too big for the task. What is called for is a blessing of individuals; we are all sinners, and if we ask for a blessing in good faith, a dedicated priest will not refuse us.
Marriage, “same-sex couples,” and “moral perfection”
Third, FS differentiates same-sex unions from sacramental marriage (FS 4-6). Does this help? Not sufficiently. As stated above, the only morally good use of the sexual faculty is one between the spouses in a valid natural or sacramental marriage. Both kinds of marriage, natural or sacramental, are by definition heterosexual. Both are morally good. Thus, it is not sacramentality itself that is alone off limits for those in same-sex relationships. It is any kind of sexual union.
Fourth, FS uses the phrase “same-sex couple,” not “same-sex union” (FS 2, 31, 38, 39, 41). This phrasing is peculiar and does not alleviate the problem. What does the phrase same-sex “couple” even mean? Would we say that two men in a virtuous friendship are a “same-sex couple”? Not in the least. “Same-sex couple” means two men or two women with sexual affection for each other who choose to express that sexual affection in a completed way as an act integral to their steady commitment to each another. This is precisely what we mean when we speak of a “same-sex union.” It could be likened to the distinction between the “organized mafia” and the same group considered as a “protection syndicate.” Suppose the “protection syndicate” asked for a blessing because the restaurant in which it operates is clean and serves good food, because the members have fraternity, because shops are protected from other crime, because they donate to Mother Church, etc. Would the Church refuse to offer a liturgical blessing to the group as “organized mafia” but permit the group a non-liturgical blessing as “protection syndicate” in light of these good elements in the life of the mob? Absurd. So, too, the suggested distinction between union and couple is artificial; it is another red herring.
Fifth, what about FS’s reassurance that those seeking an extra-liturgical blessing “should not be required to have prior moral perfection” (FS 25)? This passage is also misleading. The Church does not require moral perfection of anyone seeking a liturgical blessing nor of anyone receiving the sacraments. What, then, the reassurance? We are told that we must “shy away from … 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.” (FS 25).
What on earth is this passage about? Is the implication that it is narcissistic to uphold the Church’s own moral teaching and sacramental practice that only Catholics in the state of grace may receive the Holy Eucharist? What living priest or bishop conducts public moral inquiries into private acts? Just who is “inspecting and verifying” instead of opening the door to grace? Holy Mother Church withholds the sacraments from public sinners until they cooperate with divine grace and rectify their situation. Such discipline is for the good of the sinner and of the Mystical Body. The Church instructs anyone conscious of mortal sin not to receive the Eucharist before obtaining sacramental absolution. Thereby, the door of divine mercy is kept open. Renegades, wittingly or unwittingly, obscure the evil of moral abominations from the eyes of the sinner himself and of the public at large and thus close the door of divine mercy upon those most in need of it and by such scandals cause others to question their faith.
Conclusion
FS portends to be a scandal in various ways. Same-sex couples and couples in irregular situations will feel affirmed in the sinful act integral to their relationships. They will be tempted to gloss over the few references to traditional doctrine and unchanging moral teaching because they are receiving a blessing as members of a sinfully sexual relationship. Homosexuals will be tempted to ignore that the remote implication in some of these traditional phrases is that the goal of such blessings is repentance from sodomy and a complete reorientation of the very relationship (FS 31, 40), namely, the end of a ‘same-sex’ relationship and the beginning of a legitimate friendship unsullied by disordered abuse, however consensual. Those living in adultery or fornication will fare similarly, mutatis mutandis.
As a result, living in public sin, they are likely to be emboldened. Thus mistaken, they will be distanced from the very mercy of God, which calls them to and equips them for repentance and real happiness. Further, their friends and loved ones, considering them with a tenderness rooted in the flesh rather than in right reason, much less spiritual prudence, will fall prey to erroneous assessments and thus mistakenly think that their efforts to assist these couples are acts of charity.
It is obvious that this document has already caused the very scandal that it instructs priests and deacons to avoid, namely, the misconception that the Catholic Church is changing her perennial moral teaching and that sodomy is now acceptable. Can we hope to hear the voice of prophets crying in the wilderness that fornication, adultery, and sodomy are gravely evil? Will the pastors of the Church remind the faithful about these universal moral truths? Will they clearly instruct couples in these problematic situations? Will they take care to avoid scandal? Or, rather, will hopes build in same-sex and other couples that one day the Church will welcome the very act that is integral to the relationship as sexual? I hope for brighter days that see the repeal of this tragic document and the clear, unambiguous proclamation of the truth. True accompaniment requires such proclamation, since accompaniment—as the help of companions along the pilgrim journey—needs a genuine and agreed upon goal: one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God (Eph 4:5f).
No doubt there are faithful priests who will attempt to apply FS in a manner that adheres to the moral teaching and sacramental practice of the Church. They will preface any such unofficial blessing with an unambiguous, substantive proclamation of the truth. Would any couples in the aforesaid situations wish to hear all this without the compunction and tears that befit the sacrament of reconciliation?
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
