The good
I have already
had a lot to say about the subject on Twitter, but an article summarizing the main
points might be useful. The first thing
to note is that at the Declaration emphasizes that there is no change to the
relevant doctrinal principles, which it explicitly reaffirms. It also emphasizes that no blessing or
liturgical rite that might imply such a change can be approved. Here are the relevant passages:
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…
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” – and what contradicts it are
inadmissible. 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.
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…
[T]he Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons
of the same sex…
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.
End
quote. So far so good. Why the controversy, then? And exactly what has changed? To understand that, consider next that the
Declaration holds that what has been said so far cannot be the end of the
story, given the nature of the act of asking for a blessing. It says:
In order to help us understand the
value of a more pastoral approach to blessings, 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.” 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…
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…
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.
End
quote. Let’s leave aside the middle
paragraph, which attacks a straw man. No
one holds that either moral perfection or exhaustive moral analysis ought to be
prerequisites to blessing someone. The key
principle here is that the act of asking for a blessing evinces “a petition for
God’s assistance, a plea to live better, and confidence in a Father who can
help us live better” etc. Again, so far,
so good. I don’t know of anyone who
denies that this is the case, at least in general.
The bad
The problem
comes from the Declaration’s claim that this principle is such an “innovative
contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings” that it calls for “a real
development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the
official texts of the Church.” In
particular, claims Fiducia Supplicans,
it entails “the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and
same-sex couples.” Later on the
Declaration repeats that what is in view is “the possibility of blessings
for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex.” And again, the Declaration speaks of cases where
a “prayer of blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation”
or “the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple,” and where the
request can be granted given that certain conditions are met. (Emphasis added
in each case)
To be sure, Fiducia Supplicans makes clear
qualifications regarding the spirit and manner in which such blessings can be
given. It says that a blessing for such
a couple can be permitted “without officially validating their status or
changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage.” It acknowledges that such couples may be in “situations
that are morally unacceptable from an objective point of view.” It envisages cases where such couples, in
requesting a blessing, “do not claim a legitimation of their own status.” And in any event, says the Declaration, in
allowing such a blessing, “there is no intention to legitimize anything.” Moreover, there is no authorization of
anything more than an informal blessing, and it must not be construed as a
blessing on a civil union or a purported marriage. The Declaration says:
The form of [these blessings] should
not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion
with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage…
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.
End
quote. These qualifications reinforce
the Declaration’s insistence that there is no change at the level of doctrine
and thus no approval of any sexually immoral arrangements. What is in view is simply acknowledging that
to ask a blessing involves a recognition of the need for God’s assistance, as
well as a plea “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,” on the part of those “whose guilt or responsibility may be
attenuated by various factors affecting subjective imputability.” And as far as I have seen, no one has any
quarrel with giving a blessing to any individual
who asks for it in this spirit. Indeed,
the 2021 Vatican statement issued under Cardinal Ladaria explicitly said that
to forbid the blessing of couples “does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual
inclinations, who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans
of God as proposed by Church teaching” (emphasis added).
What has generated
controversy are the words I have put in bold italics above. Indeed, “controversy” is much too mild a
word. At the time I write this, the
bishops of Poland,
Ukraine,
Nigeria,
Malawi
and Zambia have indicated that they will not implement the
Declaration. Cardinal Ambongo,
Archbishop of Kinshasa, has
called for a united African response to the problematic new
policy. The Declaration has been
criticized by Cardinal
Müller, Archbishop
Chaput, Archbishop
Peta and Bishop Schneider, and the
British Confraternity of Catholic Clergy. Among priests and theologians, criticisms
have been raised by Fr.
Thomas Weinandy, Fr. Dwight
Longenecker, Prof.
Larry Chapp, and others.
The problems
with Fiducia Supplicans can be summed
up in three words: incoherence, abuse, and implicature. Let’s consider
each in turn.
The
incoherence stems from the fact that, as Dan Hitchens has
pointed out at First Things,
the Declaration contradicts the 2021 Vatican document. The contradiction is clear when we compare
the following two statements:
2021: “It is
not licit to impart a blessing on
relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity
outside of marriage… as is the case of the unions between persons of the same
sex”
2023:
“Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for
couples of the same sex”
I trust that
the contradiction is obvious to anyone who reads the two statements
dispassionately, but in case it is not, here’s an explanation. A “couple” is just the same thing as two
people in a “relationship” or “partnership.”
“Irregular situations” is a common euphemism in contemporary Catholic
discourse for relationships that involve fornication, an invalid marriage,
same-sex sexual activity, or the like.
The 2021 document clearly peremptorily rules out any blessing for a
couple in this sort of situation, whereas the 2023 document clearly allows it
under certain circumstances. Since
these are contradictory, the new Declaration entails a clear reversal of the
2021 document.
On Twitter, I’ve
seen several odd, tortuous, and utterly unconvincing attempts to get around
this problem. Some say that the new
document authorizes blessing “couples” but not “unions.” The problem, of course, is that the
distinction is merely verbal. Both the
2021 and 2023 documents are addressing romantic relationships. And in that context, to be a “couple” entails
having a “union” of some kind (an emotional bond, going steady, sharing bed and
board, or whatever). To say that one
might bless couples but not unions is like saying that one could bless
bachelors without blessing unmarried men.
What if
“unions” are understood as “civil
unions,” in the legal sense? This does
indeed have a different meaning than “couples,” since not all couples are in
civil unions. But this does not solve
the problem, because the 2021 document rules out blessing any unions of a same-sex or otherwise irregular kind, not merely
civil unions in the legal sense. Indeed,
Fiducia Supplicans is doubly incoherent, because it reiterates the teaching of the 2021
document that “the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions
of persons of the same sex.” This
statement contradicts the statement that couples
can be blessed, because a “couple” and a “union” are the same thing. The new
Declaration thus not only contradicts the 2021 document, it contradicts itself.
Some have
claimed that couples and unions are not
the same thing, on the grounds that “couple” can refer to simply a pair of
individual things, as when one speaks of drinking “a couple of beers” or having
slept for “a couple of hours.” But the
problem is that the context concerns, again, couples in the romantic sense. And a couple in that sense is more than
merely a pair of individuals. It is,
again, a pair who have some emotional bond or the like. It would be absurd to pretend that Fiducia Supplicans is speaking of
“couples” in a thin sense that might include two complete strangers who simply
happen to be standing next to each other as each asks the same priest for a
blessing!
Some have
claimed that Fiducia Supplicans merely
authorizes blessing the individuals
who make up the couple, not the couple itself. But the document explicitly and repeatedly
speaks of blessing couples, not
merely the individuals in the couple.
Moreover, the 2021 document already explicitly said that individuals
could be blessed. So there would be no
need for the new document, and in particular nothing in it that counts as
“innovative” or as “a real development,” without the reference to “couples,”
specifically.
Some have
claimed that there is crucial significance in the phrase “blessing for couples,” as if the “for” somehow
entailed that the couple itself is not being blessed. One problem with this is that we need some
explanation of how a “blessing for couples”
amounts to anything different from “blessing couples.” Another problem is that the Declaration also
does in fact speak of “blessing couples,”
and not merely of “blessings for couples.”
Some have
claimed there is no contradiction between the 2021 and 2023 documents insofar
as one can, they say, bless a “couple” without blessing the “relationship”
between the individuals who make up the couple.
But again, the document speaks of blessing couples, not merely the individuals
in the couple. The blessing is imparted
to a couple qua couple, not merely
qua individuals. That is, as I have
said, why the document can claim to be “innovative” and “a real
development.” But how can one bless a
couple qua couple without blessing
the relationship that makes it the case that they are a couple?
The 2021
document also explicitly says that while individuals
in unions can be blessed, it “declares illicit any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such.” But to bless couples qua couples and not
merely qua individuals is precisely“to
acknowledge their unions as such.” So,
even if one could make sense of the idea of blessing a couple without blessing
the relationship, there would still
be a contradiction between the 2021 and 2023 documents. Even acknowledging
the union while blessing it, no less than the blessing itself, is forbidden by
the 2021 document but allowed by the 2023 document.
The bottom
line is that blessing “couples” in the 2023 document amounts to “blessing
people qua in a relationship.” And the
2021 document’s prohibition on blessing “relationships” is obviously just a way
of prohibiting “blessing people qua in a relationship.” The differences in phraseology between the
documents are merely verbal. Perhaps the
new document uses the words it does in the hope
of avoiding a contradiction. The
point, though, is that it does not in
fact avoid a contradiction, given the way terms like “couple,”
“relationship,” and the like are actually used when describing romantic and
sexual situations. Nor are there any
special theological usages in play here, for the relevant terms have none.
So, it is,
in my judgement, sheer sophistry to deny thatFiducia Supplicans permits the blessing of couples in
same-sex and other irregular relationships, and to deny that this contradicts
the 2021 document. On Twitter, Fr. James
Martin triumphantly
declared:
Re: Vatican declaration on same-sex
blessings. Be wary of the "Nothing has changed" response to today's
news. It's a significant change. In short, yesterday, as a priest, I was forbidden
to bless same-sex couples at all. Today, with some limitations, I can.
One can and
should lament that Fr. Martin is
right, but one cannot reasonably deny
it – Fiducia Supplicans does indeed
mark a significant change, and precisely because it permits what was previously
forbidden.
The ugly
Now, Fr.
Martin immediately
went on to bless a same-sex couple in a manner that even some
defenders of Fiducia Supplicans have
said is an abuse of the Declaration.
This brings us to the second problem with the Declaration, which is that
such abuse was inevitable. For, again, the new document makes the
Church’s current policy incoherent. On
the one hand, the Document insists that there is no doctrinal change at all,
and that there is no change entails that the Church can no more acknowledge the
acceptability of same-sex and other irregular “couples” today than it has in
the past. On the other hand, to bless such couples as couples (and not merely as individuals) implies that their being
a couple is in some way acceptable (and not merely that they are accepted as
individuals). It “tends to acknowledge
their unions as such,” which the 2021 document forbade.
Hence, many
are bound to judge that the Church now in some way accepts same-sex and other
irregular “couples” – again, as couples
and not merely as individuals – and will naturally draw the conclusion that she
no longer takes very seriously the immoral sexual behavior that defines such
relationships. To be sure, Fiducia Supplicans explicitly rejects
any approval of such behavior. But that
is bound to be lost on the average man in the pew. If one has to have special theological
expertise even to try to make
coherent sense of Fiducia Supplicans– and is likely to fail even then – it can hardly be surprising if people draw
from it precisely the heterodox conclusions the document claims to
forestall.
This brings
me to the last problem with the Declaration, which is the implicature it involves. An
implicature is a communicative act which, by virtue of its context or manner,
relays a meaning that goes beyond the literal meaning of the actual words that
may be used. To take an example I’ve
used before, suppose you go out on a blind date and a friend asks
you how it went. You pause and then
answer flatly, with a slight smirk: “Well, I liked the restaurant.” There is nothing in the literal meaning of
this sentence, considered all by itself, that states or implies anything
negative about the person you went out with, or indeed anything at all about
the person. Still, given the context,
you’ve said something insulting. You’ve
“sent the message” that you liked the restaurant but not the person. Or suppose someone shows you a painting he
has just completed, and when asked what you think, you respond: “I like the
frame.” The sentence by itself doesn’t
imply that the painting is bad, but the overall speech act certainly conveys
that message all the same.
In these
cases, the speaker intends the insult, but the implicature can exist even
without the intention. Suppose you said
“Well, I liked the restaurant” or “I like the frame” without wanting to insult anyone, and indeed with the intention of
avoiding the insult that would follow from saying directly what you really
think. You still would have sent an
insulting message, however inadvertently, because these statements would in fact be insulting, given the
context. That you meant no insult is irrelevant. And it would be disingenuous or at least
naïve of you to protest your innocence on the grounds that the literal meaning
of your words is in no way insulting.
For the literal meaning is not all that is relevant to the message sent
by an utterance. Even if you were
innocent of intending to insult, you
are guilty of carelessness or at least naïveté.
Implicatures
have always been important to the Church when evaluating theological
propositions (even if churchmen and theologians don’t usually use the word“implicature,” which is a technical
term from linguistics and philosophy). Even
statements that are not strictly heretical, or even erroneous, have
nevertheless been condemned as problematic in some other way. For example, they might be badly expressed; or ambiguous; or prone to cause
scandal; or “savor of heresy”
even if not being strictly heretical; or “offensive
to pious ears.” These are among the “theological
censures” well-known to Catholic theologians of past generations,
even if they are not always familiar to contemporary writers. A moral or theological proposition whose
literal meaning is not necessarily heretical or even false might still be
“badly expressed” or “prone to cause scandal” or the like insofar as, given the
context in which it is asserted, it involves a heretical or false implicature.
Now, here is
the context relevant to Fiducia
Supplicans: The secular world hates the Church’s teaching on sexual
morality perhaps more than any other of her doctrines. It constantly urges her to abandon it, many
supposing that it is simply a matter of time until she does abandon it. Most churchmen rarely discuss it, and on the occasions
when they do, the tendency is to give a vague and perfunctory acknowledgement
following by an impassioned plea for acceptance of those who do not obey
it. The current pope tends to favor and promote
churchmen who deemphasize traditional teaching on the subject, and strongly to
disfavor churchmen who happen to have a reputation for upholding it. He is also widely perceived as being inclined
to soften Church teaching in other areas.
Those who have most loudly favored the blessing of same-sex and other
“irregular” couples are precisely those who reject the Church’s traditional
teaching on sexual morality, whereas those who have most loudly opposed such
blessings are those most keen to uphold that teaching. Meanwhile, no one could fail to realize in
advance of issuing a document like Fiducia
Supplicans that the qualifications it makes would be known to few who would
hear about it and understood by fewer – that, to most laymen who would learn of
these qualifications, they would sound confusing and legalistic and make far
less of an impression than the new policy itself.
It cannot
reasonably be denied that, given all of this
context, the Declaration has the implicature that the Church is now at
least in part conceding the criticisms of those who reject her teaching, and
that she now in some way approves of certain
same-sex and other “irregular” arrangements (such as those involving
fornication and invalid marriages). It
cannot fail to send that message whether
or not it was the message intended.
And it does so regardless of
all the silly wrangling over the meaning of “couple,” and whether or not one could somehow cobble together a strained reading
that reconciles the new document with the 2021 document. Even if the Declaration is not strictly
heretical, it is manifestly “prone to cause scandal,” “badly expressed,” and “ambiguous.”
It is worth
adding that we are only seeing the beginning of the implications of this
development. There is nothing special
about “couples,” after all. Hence there
is no reason in principle why the logic of the Declaration should rule out
blessings for “throuples” or even larger polyamorous “unions,” or for
organizations like the pro-abortion Catholics for Choice. How could it?
Members of such groups would also claim that there is much “that is
true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships,” and that
by the very act of asking for a blessing, they are “expressing a petition for
God’s assistance, a plea to live better, and confidence in a Father who can
help us live better.” Why should they be
denied, if same-sex and other “irregular” “couples” are not to be denied?
Cardinal Müller
judges the new Declaration “self-contradictory.” Archbishop Chaput describes it as “doubleminded.” Fr. Weinandy says it “wreaks havoc.” Prof. Chapp pronounces it a “disaster.” Prof. Roberto de Mattei, though a reliably
measured commentator on the controversies surrounding Pope Francis, nevertheless
writes: “It pains me to say, that a very grave sin was committed by those
who promulgated and signed this scandalous statement.” These conclusions all seem to me exactly
right.
It is extremely rare that such things could
justly be said of the highest doctrinal authorities in the Church, but it can
happen when a pope does not speak ex
cathedra, and it is not unprecedented.
The most spectacular case is that of Pope Honorius, whose ambiguous teaching
gave aid and comfort to the Monothelite heresy.
For this he was condemned by three Church councils and by his
successors. Pope St. Leo II declared:
“We anathematize the inventors of the new error… and also Honorius, who did not
attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic
tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.” Historian Fr. John Chapman, in his book The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, notes
that “the formula for the oath taken by every new Pope from the 8th century
till the 11th adds these words to the list of Monothelites condemned: ‘Together
with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions’” (pp. 115-16). I have discussed the case in detail here
and here.
The case of Pope Honorius should be studied carefully by theologians and churchmen – and by Pope Francis especially.