What Does Fiducia Supplicans Say About Same-Sex Relationships?
A Dialogue with Cardinal Gerhard Müller
The Vatican’s recent declaration Fiducia Supplicans (FS) opened the door for extra-liturgical, “spontaneous” (#35) blessings for same-sex couples. Should these be considered blessings of the relationship itself, or are they given to the individuals in the relationship? That’s the question I wrestled with last week, framed in terms of the distinction the document makes between “couples” and “unions.” Perhaps worrying about that question is splitting hairs—after all, in a spontaneous blessing “lasting a few seconds,” as Cardinal Víctor Fernández, the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), wrote in a press release issued on January 4, it would be hard to tell the difference.
A more substantial question, however, raised by many critics of FS, is whether the declaration is proposing the blessing of a situation that is sinful in nature. For example, Bishop Rafael Escudero of Moyobama, Peru, one of the most strident critics of FS among the episcopacy, has written:
Blessing couples in an irregular situation and same-sex couples is a grave abuse of the Most Holy Name of God, which is invoked over a sinful union characterized by fornication, adultery, or even worse, homosexual activity. And in the last case, it must be emphasized that, “. . . [H]omosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2357). God never blesses sin. (My own translation.)
Many other critics have made much the same argument. Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the former Prefect of the Congregation (now Dicastery) for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), has offered a more theologically sophisticated version of the argument, which I will consider here. Contrary to Escudero, Müller, and other critics, FS is not proposing that the Church “bless sin.” Nevertheless, Müller’s criticisms of FS raise some important issues regarding both what FS is actually proposing and the Vatican’s evolving understanding of same-sex relationships.
FS takes as a starting point the Catholic Church’s traditional teaching that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and “it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning” (#4). Of course, many Catholics would challenge that starting point, but the point here is that, contrary to some critics, the Vatican is not overturning or revising those teachings in FS. Likewise, in several places FS insists that blessings for same-sex couples or couples in irregular situations (such as remarriage after a divorce) should not be offered in a way that suggests these relationships are marriages, or analogous to marriages, in the sense mentioned above.
FS also makes clear that when people seek a blessing, they approach God in humility and in need of healing:
One who asks for a blessing shows 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. (#20)
For this reason, there should not be moral prerequisites that must be met before receiving such a simple blessing (#12). On the other hand, such a blessing should not be understood as legitimizing whatever is sinful in that person’s life situation (#40). This is why, if it is carried out in an extra-liturgical context, a blessing should not be construed as legitimizing a same-sex or irregular union (#11).
Cardinal Müller, in his criticism of the declaration, grants that FS affirms all of this. His argument, however, is that by providing for the blessing of same-sex couples and couples in irregular situations, FS nevertheless ends up legitimizing what Church teaching considers sinful about those relationships, and therefore contradicting those teachings the document claims to uphold. That’s why he considers FS’s teaching “self-contradictory.” Let’s look in more detail at his argument.
Müller argues that the distinction between liturgical and extra-liturgical blessings made in FS is one that is also made in the Rituale Romanum, or the Book of Blessings, which distinguishes between the blessings associated with the sacraments and those the Rituale Romanum calls “sacramentals,” everyday blessings that can be given in a variety of settings. He likewise concedes that the sacraments have moral prerequisites that do not necessarily apply to sacramentals. He writes:
The Church does not require the same moral conditions for a blessing as for receiving a sacrament. This happens, for example, in the case of a penitent who does not want to abandon a sinful situation, but who can humbly ask for a personal blessing so that the Lord may give him light and strength to understand and follow the teachings of the Gospel.
So far, Müller and FS seem to be in agreement.
Müller, however, points out that the Rituale Romanum makes a second kind of moral stipulation that applies to both types of blessings—a blessing can only be given to “things, places, or circumstances that do not contradict the law or the spirit of the Gospel” (Rituale Romanum, # 13, cited in FS #10). Although not clearly defined, the sort of things that could not be blessed are things whose purpose is completely contrary to the Christian moral life—Müller provides as examples of things that could never be blessed an abortion clinic or a criminal enterprise (a “mafia group”).
This does not mean, according to Müller, that a sinful person, or a person living in sin, cannot be blessed, as the earlier example of the penitent mentioned earlier illustrates. It does mean, however, that certain things, places, or situations in their objective nature are unsuitable for being blessed.
Müller goes on to argue that same-sex relationships and other irregular relationships are in this category of things that should not be blessed, even extra-liturgically. He writes:
Now, God cannot send his grace upon a relationship that is directly opposed to him and cannot be ordered toward him. Sexual intercourse outside of marriage, qua sexual intercourse, cannot bring people closer to God and therefore cannot open itself to God's blessing. Therefore, if this blessing were given, its only effect would be to confuse the people who receive it or who attend it. They would think that God has blessed what He cannot bless. This “pastoral” blessing would be neither pastoral nor a blessing. …
The difficulty of blessing a union or couple is especially evident in the case of homosexuality. For in the Bible, a blessing has to do with the order that God has created and that he has declared to be good. This order is based on the sexual difference of male and female, called to be one flesh. Blessing a reality that is contrary to creation is not only impossible, it is blasphemy. …
Müller cites the CDF’s 2021 responsum ad dubium on the topic of blessing same-sex unions (written when the CDF was under the leadership of Luis Ladaria, S.J.), which makes much the same point:
[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.
Müller spends a great deal of time making the case that FS proposes a new, third type of blessing different from the two envisioned in the Rituale Romanum—i.e., those associated with the sacraments and sacramentals—that, in essence, can be used to bless “situations that are contrary to the law or spirit of the gospel,” an innovation he argues is contrary to Tradition and theologically contradictory.
I don’t think the text of FS supports this conclusion—it even cites several blessings from the Rituale Romanum as examples of the sort of pastoral, spontaneous blessings it is proposing (see #28). FS only seems to envision two types of blessings, the very two described in the Rituale Romanum. So, Müller appears to be off base here. But what of his argument that FS opens the door for blessing “situations that are contrary to the law or spirit of the gospel”?
FS teaches that while it can be appropriate to bless a same-sex couple in an extra-liturgical context, it would be inappropriate to bless the couple’s union, particularly in a liturgical context. Last week, I noted that this distinction between a “couple” and their “union” is ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations. Although it is still not entirely clear, I now think, especially in light of what Cardinal Fernández put forward in his clarifying press release, that this should be understood as a distinction between blessing the individuals in a relationship and the relationship itself.
If that is how FS should be read, however, then Müller’s entire argument falls apart, even if one concedes his claim that a same-sex relationship is a situation contrary to the law or spirit of the Gospel in the sense intended by the Rituale Romanum. As Müller himself admits, a person living in sin, including a person in a sinful relationship, can ask for and receive a blessing. Therefore, that ought to be how FS is read: people in same-sex relationships or irregular relationships, as children of God, can ask for and receive a blessing without this being understood as legitimizing their relationship. FS is a call for priests to engage with the people of God through blessings and other sacramentals in a way that will reach those on the “peripheries” of the Church.
So, there are very good reasons for considering Müller’s criticisms of FS unwarranted, even if, as I said above, one concedes his claim that a same-sex relationship is a situation contrary to the law or spirit of the Gospel. But does FS concede that? Does FS share the assessment of the CDF’s 2021 document that same-sex relationships cannot be ordered to God? FS seems to intentionally sidestep the question. My impression is that FS is written to accommodate a variety of views on this question, including that of those who agree with Müller and the earlier CDF document, but also those who, as FS notes, “did not share the negative response [the CDF’s responsum ad dubium] gave to the question or did not consider the formulation of its answer and the reasons provided in the attached Explanatory Note to be sufficiently clear” (#3).
In the first place, I think FS could be read in a way consistent with Müller’s understanding of same-sex relationships. FS cites approvingly the CDF’s (and, indirectly, the Rituale Romanum’s) claim that “it is necessary that what is blessed corresponds with God’s designs written in creation and fully revealed by Christ the Lord” (FS, #11) while making the case that same-sex relationships or other irregular relationships should not be treated the same as marriage. And as I already noted, the implied distinction between blessing the individuals in a relationship and the relationship itself seems designed to accommodate this view.
FS, however, links this requirement of consistency with God’s designs specifically to liturgical blessings, which makes the intent here ambiguous. Does this mean that same-sex relationships are “directly opposed to” God, per Müller, or simply that these relationships fall short of the ideal of marriage? Is this meant to suggest that same-sex relationships are among the “things, places, or circumstances that . . . contradict the law or the spirit of the Gospel” mentioned in the Rituale Romanum, or is this meant to refer to the stricter moral prerequisites necessary for the reception of some of the sacraments? Here I think Müller has a point—FS does not adequately distinguish these two types of moral prerequisites for blessings, making its argument ambiguous.
In the second place, one might argue that FS avoids making a definitive statement either confirming or rejecting the CDF’s earlier statement regarding same-sex relationships, as well as other irregular relationships, precisely to shift the focus of the Church’s pastoral activity away from the objective moral status of people’s situations and toward the more subjective consideration of helping people grow in their relationship with Christ, although without denying that the two are connected or that there are situations, such as the reception of certain sacraments, when objective moral considerations are essential. I think this shift was evident in Pope Francis’s earlier response to five dubia questions, as I noted here, and so it might make sense to read FS in a way consistent with Francis’s earlier statement.
In the third place, however, I think there are good reasons to think that FS reflects a certain dissatisfaction with how the CDF’s 2021 document described same-sex relationships. Most importantly, note that the latter states that “[I]t is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace,” suggesting that same-sex relationships are not so ordered. FS, on the other hand, in a key passage I have cited several times elsewhere, states:
[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)
Regardless of whether same-sex relationships can be blessed or merely the individual persons in the relationships, here FS is clear that the relationship itself can be transformed by grace as a result of the blessing. This appears to be a significant development vis-a-vis the earlier document.
It’s also noteworthy that FS recognizes that there are elements that are “true, good, and humanly valid” in same-sex relationships without immediately qualifying this with the claim that “the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan,” as is the case in the 2021 document. It’s possible, although by no means certain, this suggests the DDF has concluded the earlier assessment of same-sex relationships was too one-sided and not necessarily entailed by the teachings regarding marriage and human marriage that FS considers essential.
As I said, my own view is that FS was probably written to accommodate all three of these views. I think this conclusion is supported by the fact that the Vatican has, so far, seemed to tolerate quite different applications of FS in different parts of the world. Whether this toleration will lead to unity in the midst of diversity or division within the Church remains to be seen.
Of Interest…
The editors at America provide a helpful commentary on Fiducia Supplicans that puts it in the context of other recent interventions of the DDF. The editors write: “[In the cases taken up by the DDF,] prioritizing clarity in the church’s teaching seems to require some form of exclusion. And in each of these instances, the D.D.F. has replied not by changing the teaching, but by insisting that the church, even while teaching what it has always taught, must also draw close even to those whose lives may be visibly out of step with that teaching.”
This past Sunday, Pope Francis appeared on a popular Italian talk show and discussed a number of topics, including the reactions to Fiducia Supplicans. He was also asked for his thoughts on Hell, to which he replied, “What I am going to say is not a dogma of faith but my own personal view: I like to think of hell as empty; I hope it is.” I’m amused by the idea of Pope Francis appearing as a guest on a talk show—can you imagine the pope being interviewed by Jimmy Fallon?—and also intrigued that Pope Francis has raised this important issue of how we think about Hell and salvation. Francis’s remarks suggest an affinity with the position of Hans Urs von Balthasar, who argued that it is reasonable for us to hope that all people are saved. In recent years, the position of more doctrinaire universalists like David Bentley Hart have increased in prominence. For my own part, I find a position like that of Karl Rahner, that balances the hope of salvation with the recognition that human freedom makes Hell a real possibility, more convincing than either Balthasar' or Hart’s positions.
I have been following the story of a conflict in the Syro-Malabar Church over the liturgy, pitting the Synod of the Syro-Malabar Church and the Vatican, who support a uniform liturgy approved by the Synod, against the majority of priests in the Archeparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly, who refuse to accept the uniform liturgy, preferring an older liturgy in which the priest faces the people. At the end of last year, a potential compromise deal between the two parties fell apart and the then Archbishop of Ernakulam-Angamaly and head of the Syro-Malabar Church, Cardinal George Alencherry resigned. Pope Francis confirmed the election of a new archbishop, Raphael Thattil, last week. This week, however, the Church’s synod, including Thattil, issued a letter calling for the acceptance of a uniform liturgy, potentially ensuring that Thattil’s appointment will not resolve the issue.
There’s been an important development in another story I have been following, but haven’t commented on lately: Bishop Rolando Álvarez of Nicaragua, who has been imprisoned by the Nicaraguan government since 2022, was released from confinement and exiled to the Vatican, along with one other bishop, fifteen priests, and two seminarians. The deal was negotiated with the Vatican’s Secretariat of State, but the situation still reflects the tenuous relationship between church and state in Nicaragua, where the government seeks to control the appointment of bishops and stifle the Church as a critic of the regime.
Coming Soon…
As I mentioned last week, at some point soon I would like to draw on fellow Substack author Sarah Carter’s work on Pope Francis’s understanding of dialogue to shed light on some of Francis’s most important initiatives as pope. Hopefully I can get that out by next week, but I am not sure.
Also, don’t forget to watch for this week’s article for paid subscribers, on a topic yet to be determined!