The headlines around the world are as follows:
NYT: Pope Francis Allows Priests to Bless Same-Sex Couples
CNN: Pope Francis authorizes blessings for same-sex couples.
The cause of these headlines are a “statement,” Fiducia supplicans, issued by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (the pope’s doctrinal office), on the issue of blessings.
The document claims a very high level of authority. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith last issued a “statement” of this level of authority in 2000. It was called “Dominus Iesus” and it was authored by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, under John Paul II, affirming that salvation comes exclusively through Jesus Christ.
Many conscientious Catholics, believing that that the pope has no authority to authorize blessings of same-sex couples, point to the text, which makes a number of distinctions. Priests aren’t to bless same-sex couples as part of the liturgy of the Church, or any rite of the Church. They aren’t to perform these blessings while wearing any vestments or in a context suggestive of a wedding. The statement affirms that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that the Church has no authority to change this. And as you go further and further down, it suggests that such blessings aren’t of the union itself, but of the two individuals, whose request for a blessing should be treated as a sincere openess to God’s grace, wherever they are in the journey of life.
In other words, conscientious Catholics can look at the document and say, “It doesn’t say what the headlines says it says. It says that two individuals can be blessed, but not as a couple.”
To me, the confusion looks deliberate. The entire document was a response to a question from certain quarters of the Church: Can we bless same-sex couples or other couples who are married in the eyes of the law, but not those of the Church? The response from the Vativan was technically “negative.”
But here’s how CDF’s statement frames the issue: “The above-mentioned Responsum elicited numerous and varied reactions: some welcomed the clarity of the document and its consistency with the Church’s perennial teaching; others did not share the negative response it 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.”
In other words, the statement must be accepted as orthodox, but another valid response is to reject it as insufficient and wish it had gone further. Then the document goes on to outline a very complex set of assumptions about same-sex couples who request a blessing — not as a couple, and not to be confused with approving of their marriage, but simply seeking God’s light in their life — and may receive this from any priest who wants to give it. “What has been said in this Declaration regarding the blessings of same-sex couples is sufficient to guide the prudent and fatherly discernment of ordained ministers in this regard.”
In other words, as long as it all remains informal, priests can do what they want here.
As in previous “Sure, go ahead” statements, such as permitting altar girls, what is allowed informally and as a remote exception will be rapidly expanded into a completely new norm. The idea was to simply change the practice of the Church in a way that made it easier to question its theology later. “Hey, why is the priesthood reserved to men if we have so many young girls as altar servers, and women as Eucharistic Ministers?”
The celebrity Jesuit, Fr. James Martin, who has spent the Francis pontificate campaigning for pastoral and doctrinal accommodation for LGBT persons, interprets this Vatican statement as a clear permission for him to use his judgement on the matter: “As a priest I look forward to blessing same-sex couples, sharing with them the graces that God desires for everyone, something I’ve waited years to do.”
My guess is that, under this pontificate, Rome will not be anxious to correct him or issue a further clarification.
Conservative Catholics can continue to argue that the pope does not have the authority to undermine Church teaching in this way. They can argue, as I have done, that he is bound by the limits of Scripture and Tradition. But there is no mechanism to enforce those limits on the pontiff.