The Vatican Approves Blessings for Same-Sex Relationships

What Has Changed, and What Hasn't?

On Monday, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), the Vatican office headed by Cardinal Víctor Fernández and responsible for safeguarding the Church’s doctrine, issued the declaration Fiducia Supplicans. This document teaches that, under certain circumstances, a priest can offer a blessing to same-sex couples, as well as couples in what the document refers to as “irregular situations,” which primarily refers to the divorced and remarried. The Dicastery had previously issued a similar document in 2021, although in that case concluding that blessings of same-sex unions should not be permitted, and just this past July, Pope Francis wrote a response to a set of dubia, or questions, submitted by five cardinals where he seemed to open the door to blessings of same-sex couples, although as I noted in September (when the dubia letter and Francis’s response were made public), “[R]eading his words carefully, he seems to suggest that same-sex relationships or unions themselves should not be blessed, but rather the ‘one or several people’ who request the blessing.”

It’s unusual, and admittedly somewhat confusing, that the DDF has published three documents on the same topic in such a short time frame, especially when they each take somewhat different stances on the issue. I think it’s fair to say that the most recent document attempts to harmonize the teachings of the previous two documents while also developing the Church’s teaching on, and pastoral practice of, blessings. Indeed, in an introductory note to the declaration, Cardinal Fernández frames it as primarily a development of the Church’s doctrine on blessings (as opposed to human sexuality, for example). And, as James Martin, S.J. notes in his response to Fiducia Supplicans, while both the DDF’s previous statement and Pope Francis’s remarks were responses to dubia, the new document is described as a “declaration,” suggesting it is intended to offer a more authoritative treatment of the topic at hand than the previous two documents.

---

In my initial response to Pope Francis’s response to the dubia (cited earlier), I argued that the medieval scholastic practice of the obligatio, in which the participants posit a certain thesis (a positum) as true, and then debate what is and is not logically entailed by that thesis, serves as a helpful analogy for how Francis and Cardinal Fernández are developing the Church’s pastoral response to LGBTQ persons. As I wrote:

For me, it is helpful to think of the theological discussion over blessing same-sex relationships as a contemporary instance of the obligatio. Assuming for the moment certain things about human sexuality and marriage—in Pope Francis’s words, in his response to the dubia, that marriage is “an exclusive, stable and indissoluble union between one man and one woman, ordered to the procreation of children,” and that sexual activity should be exclusive to marriage—what can we affirm, and what can we not affirm? Of course, many dispute the posited claim itself, but in this case the debate is over what is, and is not, logically entailed by that claim.

In other words, Francis and Fernández are demonstrating that many of the ways that LGBTQ persons are excluded from the life of the Church are not entailed by the Church’s doctrines and can be changed. I think this has continued to be a fruitful analogy, considering the DDF’s subsequent statements on the participation of LGBTQ persons in the sacraments of baptism and matrimony (which I wrote about here) and on the participation of single mothers in the Eucharist, both of which follow a similar logic.

Like Francis’s response to the dubia, Fiducia Supplicans starts with the positum that marriage is the “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children” (citing Francis’s letter), and “it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning” (4). Nevertheless, although the document states that “[R]ites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage . . . and what contradicts it are inadmissible” (4), it affirms “the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex” (31). How does the DDF reach this conclusion, and how does it harmonize this conclusion with both the DDF’s 2021 statement and Pope Francis’s response to the dubia?

---

The majority of Fiducia Supplicans is taken up with the outlines of a theology of blessings. It begins with a citation from a 2020 general audience of Pope Francis:

The great blessing of God is Jesus Christ. He is the great gift of God, his own Son. He is a blessing for all humanity, a blessing that has saved us all. He is the Eternal Word, with whom the Father blessed us “while we were still sinners” (Rom. 5:8), as St. Paul says. He is the Word made flesh, offered for us on the cross. (1)

Christ is the original blessing, and the acts of prayer that we call “blessings” are simply manifestations of or participations in that original blessing.

Later on, the document explains that blessings descend, ascend, and extend. In its origins, a blessing descends from God to humankind, a divine gift. In response, humankind offers a blessing that ascends to God: “Blessing in this sense amounts to praising, celebrating, and thanking God for his mercy and his faithfulness, for the wonders he has created, and for all that has come about by his will” (15). We also respond to God’s blessing by extending the blessing to others, what the document refers to as the blessing’s “superabundant and unconditional gift” (16). All three of these elements are present when the Church offers a blessing.

The document goes on to provide a succinct statement of how a person’s heart is moved when seeking a blessing:

One who asks for a blessing show himself to be in need of God’s saving presence in his life and one who asks for a blessing from the Church recognizes the latter as a sacrament of the salvation that God offers. To seek a blessing in the Church is to acknowledge that the life of the Church springs from the womb of God’s mercy and helps us to move forward, to live better, and to respond to the Lord’s will. (20)

It then cites a line from Francis’s response to the dubia saying much the same thing: “[W]hen 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.”

---

The DDF’s 2021 statement prohibiting the blessing of same-sex unions concluded:

[S]ince blessings on persons are in relationship with the sacraments, the blessing of homosexual unions cannot be considered licit. This is because they would constitute a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing invoked on the man and woman united in the sacrament of Matrimony, while in fact “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.” (citing Pope Francis’s Amoris Laetitia)

Fiducia Supplicans, on the other hand, suggests that this earlier document did not adequately consider the variety of forms blessings can take. In addition to the above-mentioned distinction between the descending, ascending, and extending dimensions of blessings, Fiducia Supplicans, drawing on a 2002 document from the Congregation (now Dicastery) for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, distinguishes between blessings that take place in a liturgical context and extra-liturgical blessings that are more associated with popular piety. This distinction proves to be essential to how the document both affirms the teaching of the DDF’s earlier statement while nevertheless reaching a different conclusion.

It states, “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” (9). This, however, is not the only form of blessing offered by the Church. The document goes on:

One must also avoid the risk of reducing the meaning of blessings to this [liturgical] point of view alone, for it would lead us to expect the same moral conditions for a simple blessing that are called for in the reception of the sacraments. Such a risk requires that we broaden this perspective further. Indeed, there is the danger that a pastoral gesture that is so beloved and widespread will be subjected to too many moral prerequisites, which, under the claim of control, could overshadow the unconditional power of God’s love that forms the basis for the gesture of blessing. (12)

This kind of “simple blessing” takes place outside the liturgical context and does not have the same preconditions:

There are several occasions when people spontaneously ask for a blessing, whether on pilgrimages, at shrines, or even on the street when they meet a priest. By way of example, we can refer to the Book of Blessings, which provides several rites for blessing people, including the elderly, the sick, participants in a catechetical or prayer meeting, pilgrims, those embarking on a journey, volunteer groups and associations, and more. Such blessings are meant for everyone; no one is to be excluded from them. (28)

Put even more bluntly: “Thus, 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” (25).

The DDF’s 2021 statement, according to Fiducia Supplicans, rightly concluded that the Church cannot offer a liturgical blessing analogous to the nuptial blessing to a same-sex union, or “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” (11). The earlier document, however, did not sufficiently take account of the fact that the Church offers other, extra-liturgical, forms of blessing which can be appropriate for same-sex couples.

It’s interesting to note how this argument differs somewhat from Francis’s earlier one. In my earlier commentary, I noted that Francis puts the emphasis on the subjectivity of those seeking the blessing rather than on objective moral preconditions for receiving it, and this is echoed in Fiducia Supplicans. The latter, however, balances this by affirming that sacramental and other liturgical blessings do have certain moral preconditions, even if, as Francis points out in Amoris Laetitia, both objective and subjective factors need to be considered when approaching the sacraments.

Similarly, in his response to the dubia, Francis resisted establishing ritual norms for blessing persons in same-sex relationships because these cases require personal and practical discernment. Fiducia Supplicans, while affirming Francis’s point, frames the issue in terms of the distinction it makes between liturgical and extra-liturgical blessings:

[I]t is essential to grasp the Holy Father’s concern that these non-ritualized blessings never cease being simple gestures that provide an effective means of increasing trust in God on the part of the people who ask for them, careful that they should not become a liturgical or semi-liturgical act, similar to a sacrament. Indeed, such a ritualization would constitute a serious impoverishment because it would subject a gesture of great value in popular piety to excessive control, depriving ministers of freedom and spontaneity in their pastoral accompaniment of people’s lives. (36)

(Photo: Masha S, Unsplash)

---

Probably the more significant way the Fiducia Supplicans goes beyond Francis’s earlier remarks is that it seems to admit that not just the individual persons in a same-sex relationship, but the relationship itself, can be blessed by the Church. The import of this development requires some background.

At the 2014 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family, some bishops proposed that the Church could affirm the friendship, mutual giving, and sacrifice involved in many same-sex relationships while still maintaining the Church’s teachings on marriage and human sexuality, but this idea did not make it into the Synod’s final document. Influential figures in the Church, such as Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, have continued to advocate for this position, suggesting that these aspects of same-sex relationships could be the basis for a blessing.

In its 2021 statement, the DDF considered and rejected this argument:

[I]n order to conform with the nature of sacramentals, when a blessing is invoked on particular human relationships, in addition to the right intention of those who participate, it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. Therefore, only those realities which are in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by the Church.

For this reason, it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex. The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan.

In his response to the dubia, Francis sidesteps this issue. He studiously avoids referring to a blessing of the “union” or the “relationship,” and seems to suggest that it is the persons requesting the blessing who could be blessed, not their relationship.

Fiducia Supplicans does not show similar reservations. It states:

Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex, the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage. (31, emphasis added)

It goes on to say, contra the DDF’s earlier statement, that these blessings are intended to affirm and “elevate” what is good in a relationship:

In such cases, a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg 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. These forms of blessing express a supplication that God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his Spirit—what classical theology calls “actual grace”—so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love. (31, emphasis added)

What I find noteworthy is that, while Fiducia Supplicans calls attention to how its teaching on blessings represents a development in the Vatican’s position, it does not call attention to this development in its views on same-sex relationships despite it being equally important to the argument of the document.

---

As I noted at the outset, Cardinal Fernández’s method here is to develop more inclusive pastoral practices while continuing to affirm the Church’s doctrines regarding marriage and human sexuality. As Martin notes in his commentary, many will argue that, by not allowing same-sex couples to marry sacramentally, Fiducia Supplicans does not go far enough. Even if the document is recognized as doctrinally sound, conservatives will argue that its teachings will sow confusion and that the distinctions it makes between different types of blessings will be impossible to make in practice. Although it’s probably true that Fiducia Supplicans will lead to a confusing variety of pastoral responses, and the Church’s actions are likely to be misunderstood, I don’t think this is much of an argument against the document itself. Many of the Church’s teachings are widely misunderstood today, and the nuanced position the Church takes in explaining its doctrines can often lead to differing interpretations and applications amongst the faithful. Even though Fiducia Supplicans closes by baldly stating, “Beyond the guidance provided above, no further responses should be expected about possible ways to regulate details or practicalities regarding blessings of this type” (41), that doesn’t mean the Church as a whole will cease talking about same-sex blessings.

---

Of Interest…

• Back in late November, I wrote about how the crisis over the liturgy in India’s Syro-Malabar Church had reached an impasse after a deal struck by a commission of bishops and the priests of the Archeparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly fell apart. The situation took another dramatic turn this month as Cardinal George Alencherry, the Archbishop of Ernakulam-Angamaly and head of the Syro-Malabar Church, and Archbishop Andrews Thazhath, who was acting as Apostolic Administrator of the Archeparchy, both resigned. Alencherry and Thazhath had been the leading figures in the Archeparchy pushing for the liturgical compromise approved by the Syro-Malabar Church’s Synod in 2021 and supported by the Vatican. The priests of the Archeparchy, who oppose this liturgical compromise, seem to believe that Pope Francis would support their cause if he were not being misled by his advisers, but Francis released a video addressed to the faithful in the Archeparchy imploring them to accept the Synod’s liturgical compromise and resolve the dispute by Christmas.

• Bernard McGinn stands unmatched among scholars of Catholic mysticism, and Daniel Burke, writing in America, has a great interview with McGinn surveying his long career, exploring the meaning of mysticism, and discussing why people continue to be interested in mysticism. I would also recommend McGinn’s contribution to this panel discussion from 2021 on his book on the 17th-century controversy over Quietism, sponsored by the Lumen Christi Institute, in which McGinn argues led to mysticism being held in suspicion for nearly two centuries. He skillfully shows how a historical debate I had always considered obscure had profound implications for spirituality and theology.

---

Coming Soon…

• I have some further thoughts on Pope Francis’s actions disciplining Bishop Joseph Strickland and Cardinal Raymond Burke that I would like to share in a later article. I had originally hoped to include them here together with my reflections on Fiducia Supplicans, but the latter grew too long. I will publish them either as this week’s article for paid subscribers or sometime next week.