What's the Difference Between a "Couple" and a "Union"?

Has Cardinal Fernández Made a Muddle?

At the end of my commentary on the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith’s recent declaration Fiducia Supplicans, which permitted the extra-liturgical blessing of same-sex couples, I noted that, although the document claims to offer a final word from the Vatican on the practicalities of the issue (#41), “that doesn’t mean the Church as a whole will cease talking about same-sex blessings.” That was definitely an understatement.

Most notably, national bishops’ conferences and individual bishops around the world have offered varied responses to the declaration (The Pillar has an extremely helpful roundup of these responses). In some places, mostly in Europe, North America, and Latin America, many bishops have embraced, or at least accepted, the document’s teachings. On the other hand, several national bishops’ conferences in sub-Saharan Africa have recommended that priests not offer blessings to couples in irregular unions, seemingly in defiance of the Vatican. Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, has insisted that the document only applies in the Latin Church, not in the Eastern Churches.

There have also been several commentaries on the document, some supportive, others critical. Fiducia Supplicans has proven so contentious that Cardinal Víctor Fernández, the head of the DDF, felt the need to respond to the criticisms and questions, first in interviews (for example, with The Pillar and the Spanish newspaper ABC), and eventually in an official press release issued by the DDF on January 4. Fernández’s responses help clarify some of the practical issues raised in the responses to Fiducia Supplicans, but I believe the answers to some of the more abstract questions that have arisen in light of the document remain ambiguous.

I think two questions in particular are at the heart of the diverging interpretations of Fiducia Supplicans, questions I highlighted in my earlier commentary: 1) When Fiducia Supplicans suggests that a blessing can be offered to a same-sex couple, should it be considered a blessing of the relationship, or of the two individuals? 2) Does the teaching of Fiducia Supplicans contradict the Church’s teaching that blessings can only be offered to “things, places, or circumstances that do not contradict the law or the spirit of the Gospel” (Rituale Romanum, #13)? I will consider the first question in this article, and the second in an article next week.

---

In my earlier commentary on Fiducia Supplicans, I argued that the document permits the blessing of same-sex relationships, as well as other irregular relationships, considered as such, rather than simply blessing the individuals in the relationship. This was based on the crucial paragraph 31, which refers to “blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex” (emphasis added). To me, the insistence that the blessing is for the couple suggested that it is for the pair considered as a unit, rather than being given to two people individually. This would represent a step beyond Pope Francis’s response to a dubia letter issued just months earlier, which seemed to limit such blessings only to the individuals in the relationship. Some readers, both in the comments and in private correspondence, disputed my interpretation, arguing that Fiducia Supplicans should likewise be read as meaning the blessing is provided to the individuals. I will return to this point.

Many commentators, however, have focused on another distinction in the document: that between “couples” and “unions.” Unfortunately, these terms remain undefined in the document and it is not clear how they differ, if at all. But the document seems to use the term “couple” in a positive sense; as I noted, this is the term used when Fiducia Supplicans speaks in an affirmative sense of blessing same-sex relationships. The document seems to use the term “union,” however, when referring to contexts in which a blessing cannot be offered. For example:

[W]hen 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. Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex. (#5)

In [the sacrament of matrimony], the blessing given by the ordained minister is tied directly to the specific union of a man and a woman, who establish an exclusive and indissoluble covenant by their consent. This fact allows us to highlight the risk of confusing a blessing given to any other union with the Rite that is proper to the Sacrament of Marriage. (#6)

[S]ince the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, 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. (#11)

In only one instance is the term “union” used to describe a context in which a blessing could be allowed, but even here it is contrasted with the union of marriage:

. . . [P]astoral prudence and wisdom—avoiding all serious forms of scandal and confusion among the faithful—may suggest that the ordained minister join in the prayer of those persons who, although in a union that cannot be compared in any way to a marriage, desire to entrust themselves to the Lord and his mercy, to invoke his help, and to be guided to a greater understanding of his plan of love and of truth. (#30)

Also note that, in this passage anyway, there is a clear contrast between the “persons” who are blessed and the union.

(Photo: Honey Fangs, Unsplash)

I have to admit, it is not clear to me exactly what the DDF means by this distinction between a “couple” and a “union,” if anything. Perhaps it doesn’t matter all that much. For example, Mike Lewis argues that this distinction should be understood as essentially parallel to the distinction drawn in the document between an extra-liturgical blessing offered to people seeking mercy from God and a liturgical blessing, a distinction crucial to the document’s support for certain blessings for same-sex couples. In other words, the Church can offer informal, extra-liturigcal blessings to same-sex couples but cannot liturgically bless same-sex unions.

While I am sympathetic to this view—indeed, I so naturally read the document in this way I didn’t even take note of the distinction between “couples” and “unions” in my earlier commentary, focusing instead on that between liturgical and extra-liturgical blessings—I don’t think it’s ultimately satisfying. Fiducia Supplicans does seem to treat couples and unions as two different things, and so explaining that difference seems essential to understanding the document’s teaching.

The failure to explain this difference has contributed to some of the more critical responses to the document. For example, Bishop Rafael Escudero of Moyobama, Peru, in a pastoral message to his prelature (i.e., a missionary territory not yet raised to the level of diocese) that is harshly critical of the document, writes:

To bless a couple is to bless the union that exists between the two, there is no logical, real way to separate the one thing from the other. If not, why would they ask for one blessing together and not two separately? (My own translation)

Even some sympathetic to the document have raised the same question. Bishop Raimo Goyarrola of Helsinki, Finland, for example, raises this question in his pastoral message to his diocese:

The declaration discusses how to bless a couple living in an irregular situation or with a partner of the same sex without giving a blessing to the union itself. However, what makes two people a couple is a specific kind of relationship, union, or status between them (whether by law or at the emotional level). As a consequence, it may be difficult to distinguish the blessing of a couple from blessing the union which forms the couple. (Translation from The Pillar)

So, what is the difference between a couple and a union? One possibility is that what Fernández means by a “union” is a legal relationship, such as a legally recognized marriage or civil union, and so what the document is teaching is that while the Church can bless the couple, it can’t bless this legal arrangement as if it were equivalent to a marriage between a man and a woman. After all, Fernández’s home country of Argentina recognizes same-sex marriages and Italy recognizes civil unions for same-sex couples, so this is a plausible explanation of what he might mean. And Fiducia Supplicans does explicitly use the term “union” in this sense at least once, where it warns that a blessing should not be offered in conjunction with “the ceremonies of a civil union” (39). Alas, this interpretation does not seem to fit the other instances cited above, where there’s no indication that the term “union” is limited to legally recognized relationships.

Dawn Eden Goldstein, in her commentary on Fiducia Supplicans, agrees with my critics that the distinction between “couples” and “unions” should be read as a distinction between individuals and their relationship:

[T]he blessing of a couple in a same-sex union or other irregular relationship is not a blessing of their union, which is a singular thing, an “it.” It is a blessing of these persons and of their desire to “live better” in their relationship with God and with each other.

This interpretation has the benefit of clarity and consistency with Pope Francis’s earlier remarks. I think it would also render superfluous the criticism that Fiducia Supplicans, despite its protestations to the contrary, allows blessings of a sinful situation (an argument I will consider next week).

On the other hand, as I noted in my earlier commentary, the document explains that with a blessing, both the individuals and their relationship are transformed by grace: “[The recipients] 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” (31). This makes clear that the purpose of the blessing is not simply to transform the two people individually, but to ask for God’s grace to transform the relationship itself. So, it would be strange to insist that only the individuals are being blessed, but not their relationship.

Still, the fact that I find it strange doesn’t mean that isn’t what the document intends to say. Perhaps Fiducia Supplicans is arguing that the blessing is offered to the individuals but nevertheless creates the opportunity for the relationship (the “singular thing” mentioned by Goldstein) to be transformed by grace. After all, if I received a blessing as an individual, the grace I experience as a result may also transform my own marriage, my work relationships, and so on. This is a plausible interpretation. But then why, particularly since the document takes pains to insist that a same-sex relationship cannot be reduced to an instance of sin, is it necessary to insist that only individuals are being blessed? What is the objection to blessing the relationship considered as a “singular thing”?

---

Has Cardinal Fernández clarified the matter in his more recent responses? In his interview with The Pillar, Fernández is asked directly by Edgar Beltrán to clarify the matter, but the former’s response is not entirely clear:

Beltrán: One interpretation that has been given to the declaration is that the blessings would be imparted on persons and not on their union specifically. However, the document clearly speaks in its third part of blessing “couples.” 

Does this imply that the “irregular” union of these persons is being blessed?

Fernández: It is necessary to distinguish well, and the declaration makes this distinction. Couples are blessed. The union is not blessed, for the reasons that the declaration repeatedly explains about the true meaning of Christian marriage and sexual relations. 

For those who read the text serenely and without ideological prejudices, it is clear that there is no change in the doctrine on marriage and on the objective valuation of sexual acts outside the only [kind of] marriage which exists — male-female, exclusive, indissoluble, naturally open to the generation of new life). 

But this does not prevent us from making a gesture of paternity and closeness, otherwise we can become judges who condemn from a pedestal — when we consecrated men have much that humiliates us as a Church, we have given serious scandal to the simple ones with our behavior. 

Besides, we all have our personal faults, we are not fully coherent with the whole Gospel, and our lapidary judgments sometimes do not take into account that the same measure we use for others will be used with us. I, who want to go to Heaven and be very happy with God eternally, try not to forget this warning of Jesus Christ.

Fernández’s response could certainly be read as confirming the more individualistic interpretation of Fiducia Supplicans. His reference to “this distinction” seems to refer back to Beltrán’s distinction between “persons” and “union,” but then in his explanation, he instead refers to the distinction between “couples” and “unions.” Should “couples” be understood as the same thing as “persons” considered as individuals, or as a third thing, as suggested by Beltrán’s question? It’s not clear.

In the DDF’s recent press release, Fernández does not directly address this question, but he nevertheless indirectly suggests a possible answer in his description of what the blessings envisioned by Fiducia Supplicans might look like in practice:

To be clearly distinguished from liturgical or ritualized blessings, “pastoral blessings” must above all be very short (see n. 38). These are blessings lasting a few seconds, without an approved ritual and without a book of blessings. If two people approach together to seek the blessing, one simply asks the Lord for peace, health and other good things for these two people who request it. At the same time, one asks that they may live the Gospel of Christ in full fidelity and so that the Holy Spirit can free these two people from everything that does not correspond to his divine will and from everything that requires purification.

This non-ritualized form of blessing, with the simplicity and brevity of its form, does not intend to justify anything that is not morally acceptable.  Obviously it is not a marriage, but equally it is not an “approval” or ratification of anything either. It is solely the response of a pastor towards two persons who ask for God’s help. Therefore, in this case, the pastor does not impose conditions and does not enquire about the intimate lives of these people.

Since some have raised the question of what these blessings might look like, let us look at a concrete example: let us imagine that among a large number making a pilgrimage a couple of divorced people, now in a new union, say to the priest: “Please give us a blessing, we cannot find work, he is very ill, we do not have a home and life is becoming very difficult: may God help us!”.

In this case, the priest can recite a simple prayer like this: “Lord, look at these children of yours, grant them health, work, peace and mutual help.  Free them from everything that contradicts your Gospel and allow them to live according to your will. Amen”. Then it concludes with the sign of the cross on each of the two persons.

Although his example involves a divorced and remarried couple rather than a same-sex couple, his description nevertheless provides clues to his thinking about both situations. His reference to “two persons” asking for God’s help and the suggestion at the end that the priest should make the sign of the cross for each of the two persons lends support to Goldstein’s more individualistic interpretation of Fiducia Supplicans.

Note, however, that while Fernández is clearer here that the blessing is offered to the two persons individually, the purpose of the blessing has now likewise been reduced to the good of the two individuals, to “peace, health and other good things for these two people.” Fiducia Supplicans’s insistence that grace heals and transforms “all that is true, good, and humanly valid in [the recipients’] lives and their relationships” (#31) has disappeared. Of course, Fiducia Supplicans, and not Fernández’s clarification, remains the authoritative statement, but this discrepancy between the two illustrates the ambiguities in the former’s framing of the issue.

I can’t help but conclude that Fernández’s attempts to clarify Fiducia Supplicans’s teachings and satisfy its critics , while providing some details on what it envisioned in practice, and perhaps clarifying that it is individuals who are to receive a blessing, have nevertheless made a muddle of one of the declaration’s most important claims. Let me know in the comments what you think, including if you disagree or have a different interpretation. And next week I’ll return to the question of whether or not Fiducia Supplicans opens the door to blessing “sinful situations,” in the words of Cardinal Gerhard Müller.

Of Interest…

• In his annual speech to diplomats accredited to the Vatican, Pope Francis described the practice of surrogate motherhood as “deplorable” and called for an international prohibition of the practice. He argued that “A child is always a gift and never the basis of a commercial contract,” and he pointed out that surrogate motherhood often involves the exploitation of the surrogate mother’s material situation. Francis’s remarks, of course, reflect longstanding Catholic teaching on the issue of surrogacy. The Christian theologian Grace Kao has recently provided a different perspective on surrogacy, offering reflections on her own experience as a surrogate for two friends and on the ethical issues involved in My Body, Their Baby: A Progressive Christian Vision for Surrogacy. I have not yet read Kao’s book, but I would be interested in exploring the contrasts and points of convergence between Kao’s perspective and the traditional Catholic perspective reflected in Francis’s comments.

• Last week, I offered some reflections on Pope Francis’s World Day of Peace message, which focused on the ethical challenges of artificial intelligence. Michael Sean Winters offers a lengthier commentary on the address at the National Catholic Reporter that is worth reading.

---

Coming Soon…

• Like I mentioned above, next week I will offer some further thoughts on Fiducia Supplicans and its critics, particularly on the question of whether its teaching that the Church can offer blessings to same-sex couples is consistent with its affirmation of the Church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality, or whether, as some critics have alleged, it impermissibly opens the door to blessings of “sinful situations.”

• Later this week, however, paid subscribers will receive some theological reflections on the 2023 film Jesus Revolution, which chronicles the origins of the “Jesus people” or “Jesus movement,” the evangelical and charismatic Christian movement that emerged out of hippie culture in the late 1960s and early 1970s and had an influence on American Christianity, including the Catholic Church, extending well beyond the bounds of the institutions directly shaped by the movement.

• A couple of months ago, Sarah Carter, in her Substack newsletter Recovering Catholic, offered a very insightful summary of Pope Francis’s understanding of dialogue (here and here). At some point soon, I want to revisit that and explore how Carter’s insights might help us understand some of Pope Francis’s relatively recent, controversial moves as head of the Catholic Church.