To bless, or not to bless? That is the question!
By Rev. Reverend Peter M. J. Stravinskas
An Introductory Context
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the signature of Cardinal Victor Fernandez and with the approval of Pope Francis, issued its Declaration on Blessings, Fiducia Supplicans, on the 18th of December. In the octave before Christmas, each day the Church prays the “O Antiphon,” and, ironically enough, that day had us pray: “O Lord and ruler of ancient Israel, who showed yourself to Moses in the burning bush, who gave him the holy law on Sinai mountain: come, stretch out your mighty hand to set us free.” Yes, Adonai (the Lord God) gave us His holy Law, precisely to liberate us. Included in that Law are the divine prohibitions against adultery, fornication, and same-sex relations, the observance of which “set us free.”
Just as the Declaration is intent on setting context for the document, I think context is also important in our current consideration of it. The context is the decade-long campaign of this pontificate to undermine the moral theology carefully enunciated in the magisterium of Pope St. John Paul II, found in his “theology of the body,” and in texts like Familiaris Consortio, Veritatis Splendor, and Evangelium Vitae. But a few examples:
– Very early on, Pope Francis chastised those who are (in his opinion) overly involved in the pro-life movement.
– His snide remark about couples who “multiply like rabbits.”
– The famous rhetorical question of “Who am I to judge?” Actually—in context—the answer was correct because it was a response to a question about a priest who had been living immorally but who had given up his sinful lifestyle. The media, however, turned it into an endorsement of immorality and neither the Pope nor the Vatican apparatus clarified the issue, allowing for the confusion to which we have become accustomed.
– The eviscerating of the John Paul II Institute on Marriage and Family, as well as the dicastery for such concerns.
– The infamous footnote 351 in Amoris Laetitia, which sought to open the door for the divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion.
Some Dubia Arising from the Declaration
Like so many documents of this pontificate, it lacks coherence and logical development. And so, I will offer this commentary in a similar fashion, highlighting red flags in no particular order.
– With 200-some bishops in Rome in October, in an exercise of collegiality and synodality, why were they not consulted on this matter? Is it because the Pope and Cardinal Fernandez knew the worldwide episcopate was not on board?
– Are we embarking on a regional morality for a universal Church, so that what is countenanced (or even encouraged) in one corner of the Lord’s Vineyard is forbidden in another?
– Are Francis and Fernandez ignorant of what such “blessings” have done to every denomination that has moved down that road?
– Do people realize that this not only gives the green light to blessings for same-sex couples but equally to the divorced-remarried, those in civil unions, those co-habitating, and, presumably, even polygamists?
– Has anyone considered the scandal being caused among non-Catholic Christians and Orthodox Jews, who take solace from the heretofore unwavering moral compass of the Catholic Church?
– How is one to explain the self-contradiction of Francis in that his 2021 document on this topic explicitly forbids what his 2023 one now permits? That is nothing short of a leap, which cannot be deemed the “development” asserted here; indeed, such a “development” would make spin the head of St. John Henry Cardinal Newman, who was meticulous and insistent in maintaining the critical difference between “development” and “corruption” of doctrine.
– Has anyone else become suspicious of the rash of “dubia” surfacing lately for the DDF? They seem like very convenient opportunities for the Dicastery to embark on hitherto untrod trails (interestingly, with most of them emanating from Latin America). This situation puts one in mind of the clearly orchestrated “dubia” that Cardinal Arthur Roche allegedly received from bishops around the world on how to interpret Traditionis Custodes.
– And what about folks who have been living a Gospel morality, bearing the cross it entails? As a former chaplain for Courage, I am thinking of the hundreds of those with same-sex attraction, who strive to live the chastity to which Our Lord calls all disciples. Or, the divorced-remarried, who live as brother and sister, so as to make worthy receptions of Holy Communion (here my own parents rise up in my memory). Were/are these people fools for making such sacrifices?
– Does anyone in Rome care about the untenable position in which priests are now put, let alone the division it will spawn between clergy who follow the Declaration and those who don’t?
– Can we not see in this confused and confusing text the very embodiment of an unfortunately long-standing practice of ecclesiastical leaders to reward disobedience? For years, Rome said “no” to Communion-in-the-hand; that norm was ignored. Rome repeatedly said “no” to female servers; that norm was ignored. Rome said Communion under both forms was forbidden on Sundays; that norm was ignored. Eventually, each of those practices was ratified. Isn’t this just further encouragement to disobey boldly and consistently, fully confident that your currently banned practice will be hallowed?
– The confusing language served up in Fiducia Supplicans is exactly the junk food we were force-fed in my seminary many years ago. We thought the hearty fare of John Paul had replaced that unhealthy diet.
– Jesuit James Martin featured the next day in the New York Times blessing a civilly married same-sex couple, indicating his pleasure at being able to do that day what he couldn’t do the day before.
– Defenders of this Declaration—and the Declaration itself—argue that priests are regularly asked for blessings and that we don’t know whom or what we are necessarily blessing. I beg to differ. I travel the streets of New York City many hours every month and, yes, am very frequently asked: “Father, can you give me a blessing?” As part of my pastoral solicitude, I respond, “Sure. What do you need a blessing for?” “To do well on an exam tomorrow.” “For good results from a medical test.” “For a reconciliation in my family.” “To make a good haul in a bank heist this afternoon.” To be sure, I cannot bless the last agenda item. Nor can I bless a situation of manifest grave sin (e.g., adultery, fornication, same-sex activity, polygamy). All I can do is promise to pray that Almighty God will give the individual(s) the grace to conform to God’s noble plan for the human person.
– Further to the point on the nature of blessings: The Catechism and The Book of Blessings teach that a blessing is a “sacramental,” which derives its efficacy from the sacraments. From which sacrament would such a blessing as this take its power? Yet again, the Church knows of no such category as a “pastoral” blessing—an ill-conceived invention of this document. All blessings are liturgical by their very nature.
Some Concluding Observations
In a post-issuance email interview with The Pillar, Fernandez attempted to walk back much of the Declaration, saying that it teaches nothing new and maintains that sin cannot be blessed, however, that begs the question then, as to why it would have been produced to begin with. This is typical of the Francis pontificate: Say something problematic; stir the pot; then try to situate the conflict within the realm of orthodoxy. As Yeats put it, however, “The center cannot hold.”
The attempt by Fernandez does not have the ring of verisimilitude to it in light of the Pope himself. In another of Francis’ reprimands to the Roman Curia, masquerading as Christmas greetings, he castigated those who hold “rigid ideological positions,” obviously aimed at those critical of the Declaration he had approved just days earlier. No, it is not “rigid” to hold to the “faith which was once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3); it is called being faithful. In truth, it would behoove those who produced this Declaration to re-read, carefully and prayerfully, the entire Epistle of St. Jude, which eerily foreshadows this whole debacle.
At the outset, I noted the elevated moral code of the First Covenant. In point of fact, its norms were nearly unique in the ancient world, especially its sexual proscriptions, which were grounded in the Hebraic notion of man created “in the image and likeness of God.” That intuition would gain greater traction in the Christian Dispensation as St. Paul reminds the Christians of Corinth (and us) that their (and our) bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and that by engaging in sexual sins, one is sinning against one’s own body (see 1 Cor 6:18-20). St. Paul ends in this flourish: “You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”
Pope St. Leo the Great, in a Christmas homily, which we read each year in the Divine Office for the same feast, moves beyond the idea of the human person made in the divine image and makes even more precise St. Paul’s injunction to issue this stirring exhortation to greatness of soul:
Christian, remember your dignity, and now that you share in God’s own nature, do not return by sin to your former base condition. Bear in mind who is your head and of whose body you are a member. Do not forget that you have been rescued from the power of darkness and brought into the light of God’s kingdom.
Through the sacrament of baptism you have become a temple of the Holy Spirit. Do not drive away so great a guest by evil conduct and become again a slave to the devil, for your liberty was bought by the blood of Christ.
Leo raises the stakes and instructs his hearers that not only are their sexual sins offenses against their Holy Spirit-temple-bodies but also against Christ Himself, who is Head of that Body of which they are members by virtue of their baptism. Thus, we Christians have a natural, human dignity, to which is added a supernatural dignity. Leo’s successor, Benedict XVI, challenged us: “The world promises you comfort, but you were not made for comfort. You were made for greatness.”
My first course for the licentiate of sacred theology at the wonderful Dominican House of Studies in Washington was taught by the inimitable biblicist, Father Francis Martin. The first week of that semester coincided with Pope John Paul II’s removal of the license to teach Catholic theology from Father Charles Curran for his obstinate refusal to align his positions with those of immemorial Catholic moral theology. An Episcopal cleric in the class asked Father Martin, “Are you embarrassed with the Pope’s action against arguably the most prominent theologian in the country?” Father Martin replied, “People say that Charlie Curran is a nice guy.” He went on: “We Charismatics love the line, ‘Jesus is Lord.’ But what does that mean? It means that He must be the Lord of all of me—of my head, my eyes, my ears, my heart—and, yes, even of my genitals. It’s that last point that Charlie Curran has trouble understanding.” In truth, it is not possible to carve out areas removed from the Lordship of Jesus Christ. And that is the freedom, to which and for which Christ has made us free (see Gal 5:1).
And that is the fundamental problem with this document—and of much of this pontificate. What we need now is a return to the clarity of teaching that was once a hallmark of the Vatican.
Reverend Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.D., is founder and superior of the Priestly Society of Saint John Henry Cardinal Newman, a clerical association dedicated to holiness through the renewal of priestly life, the sacred liturgy, and Catholic education. He has authored or edited more than 50 books and 600 articles.