A same-sex marriage can be blessed as long as it is not confused with a wedding blessing. It is the content of the 44 paragraphs of the Declaration Fiducia supplicans on the pastoral significance of the blessings of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, published yesterday, December 18, 2023 and signed by the Prefect, Cardinal Victor M. Fernández, the Secretary of the Doctrine Department, Msgr. Armando Matteo and Pope Francis.
This is the central paragraph of the declaration: “On the horizon sketched here.” [che presenteremo, n.d.a.] There is the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and of same-sex couples, the form of which must not be subject to any ritual determination by the ecclesiastical authorities in order not to cause confusion with the blessing proper to the sacrament of marriage.
The document is intended to provide “new clarifications.” (…) to the responsum ad dubium formulated by the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and published on February 22, 2021” (No. 2) in order to try to accommodate those “who do not accept the negative answer to the question “or they did not consider it sufficiently clear in its wording and motives” (No. 3). Fernández's intention is to “maintain the doctrinal aspects” of the responsum, combining them consistently with “pastoral ones” that would not have been sufficiently taken into account in 2021, while instead they would have been promoted by Pope Francis' answers to the dubia five cardinals.
The path followed can be summarized in this way: In accordance with the Responsum, the Declaration further rejects blessings or rites that may appear to authorize non-marital unions or that bear any resemblance to wedding rites. In order to provide sufficient clarity, the Declaration intends to place the blessings “outside the liturgical framework” (No. 23), as “acts of piety that “find their place outside the celebration of the Eucharist and other sacraments”” (No. 23). 24).
Fernández emphasizes: “The Church must also avoid basing its pastoral practice on the rigidity of particular doctrinal or disciplinary systems.” (…). Therefore, when people ask for a blessing, an exhaustive moral analysis must not be considered a prerequisite for the granting of a blessing” (No. 25). In this aliturgical and ritual context, according to the instruction, irregular and same-sex couples can also be blessed by asking God through them for the graces they need.
So this would be the in-depth analysis (cf. No. 26) of the Responsum of 2021. But here too, Fernández selects from the “inconvenient” documents that precede him only what he needs for his preconceived thesis and distorts their meaning. For the Responsum is not just about not outwardly confusing the blessings of these couples with marriage – a problem that could be solved by the instruction's proposal. The point is instead another one that Fernández doesn't even mention: what is blessed when a couple is blessed? If it is a couple, it means the relationship is blessed; otherwise individuals would be blessed. But, the responsum explained, “in order to be consistent with the nature of the sacramentals, in obtaining a blessing for some human relationships it is necessary (…) that what is blessed is objectively and positively destined “to receive and express grace”; and therefore “only those realities which are in themselves destined to serve these purposes.” [di Dio nella Creazione]» can be blessed.
Precisely because these relationships cannot be ordered according to divine plans, because objectively unlike them, these couples cannot receive a blessing. Like couples. The Church can allow the blessing of a non-Catholic because that person, as a human person, is in need of the call to life of grace, but it cannot bless a homosexual couple because that couple's relationship is in no way aligned with God's relationship plans.
So it has nothing to do with the fact that the Church should not demand “too many requirements of moral character” (No. 12), because these are blessings and not sacraments. It is simply a matter of understanding whether the object of blessing is intended to serve God's plans or not; not the “occult” intentions, but those that manifest in creation and revelation.
It should be noted that the Responsum had reached this conclusion precisely “in order to be consistent with the nature of the sacramentals.”. Thinking of getting out of the bottleneck, Fernández repeatedly repeated in the instruction that blessings were simple gestures loved by people, not subject to the “requirement of control” (No. 12) and therefore not to be ritualized in any way (see No. 38). But although these blessings are not included in the rituals, despite the intimate instruction that they are never to be given “in connection with or even in relation to the civil rites of the union” (No. 39), they nevertheless remain sacramental and respond to the logic of the sacramentals. When the priest gives a blessing, even if it is not solemn, even if it is given at the back of the sacristy, he is acting as an officer of the Church and is giving a sacramental, and the gesture must therefore be consistent with the nature of sacramentals.
Let's look at it from a different angle. The root of every blessing lies in the original blessing that we find in the book of Genesis: “And God saw that it was good.” God blessed them” (Genesis 1:21-22). God's blessing is the result of His sight resting on a “good thing”. God looks at his work or man's work, sees that it is good and blesses, in our case, through the ministry of the church. But what do you see when you look at a couple living their sexuality outside of legitimate marriage? He sees something that objectively contradicts the plan of creation and does not bless him. Even God's servants cannot do it.
We then wonder what happens to all the recommendations not to equate these blessings with marriage, with which we want to solve the problem if, at n. 40, this note is given: “This blessing can instead find its place in other contexts, such as visiting a shrine, meeting a priest, at a Prayer in a group or during a pilgrimage.” The blessing effectively takes on a public dimension. And what is the point of a blessing in front of the congregation if not the public recognition of these living communities? If we admit (with difficulty) that this is not the intent of this passage of instruction, the fact remains that a blessing given to a couple in a public context must necessarily take on this meaning.
Therefore, it is simply not possible to bless an irregular couple as a couple, due to the nature of the sacramentals and the objective disorder of this relationship. Every minister of the Church who does otherwise takes it upon himself to bless what God cannot bless. Because unlike in this pontificate, God does not contradict himself.
The ax is now placed at the root of the tree (cf. Luke 3:9) and the thoughts of many hearts are revealed (cf. Luke 2:35). Let it not happen that whoever lifts up his hand to bless what the Lord has not commanded to bless, exposes himself to the fate of those prophets whom the Lord has not sent: “Then the prophet Jeremiah said to the prophet Ananias: “Hear, Ananias! The Lord has not sent you (…), therefore says the Lord: Behold, I am sending you out of the land; This year you will die because you have preached rebellion against the Lord'” (Jeremiah 28:15-16).