Some comments on Fiducia supplicans
Can couples living in a relationship not accepted by the church receive a blessing? A tiny little signal from Rome meaning “Yes, but” could not be interpreted more differently across the churches in Europe, America and all continents. What can be said about it without uprooting the delicate seedling of hope? But also without glossing over what has remained theologically questionable?
“Much, perhaps everything you say about this is wrong” – this is how the reactions to the statement Fiducia supplicans[1] published just before Christmas by the dicastery of faith on the blessing of “irregular” couples, including same-sex couples, could be summarized. Joyfully relieved, increasingly sober-critical comments and almost desperate-looking further explanations of the Fiducia supplicans declaration were flooding in almost daily, and every pro and con has its counterword. After Amoris laetitia (2016), and despite the categorical “no” to the blessing of same-sex couples in 2021 by the then-named Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith, the last word on the matter has obviously not yet been spoken.
In the days after its release, Prefect Victor Cardinal Fernandez was much sought-after for interviews on how the document he had written, and which was ratified by Pope Francis, should be interpreted. In light of its reception, he is planning “a journey of conversion and deepening with the German bishops,” which will serve as a pause for reflection to “make all the necessary clarifications” in personal conversations.[2] Until then, you should take your time and read the text non-ideologically. His statement that “one should not expect a manual, a vademecum, or a guide for something so simple”[3] proved untenable, and further clarifications followed, most recently on January 4, 2024.[4] What was unfolded on 26 (!) pages and entails a permanent need for explanation proved not to be so “simple.” And even “the real novelty of this Declaration,”[5] namely distinguishing between two different forms of blessing based on “classical theology,”[6] is neither new nor convincing. A few weeks later, it is now feared that the (well-intentioned) advance from Rome will lead to a dead end.
Can the judgment of the church mature?
The cumbersome text, which endeavors to secure as well as carefully explore new territory (which is then not entered after all), tries – as was also the case at the Second Vatican Council – to get everyone on board (as far as possible) and to not close any doors.
In advance of Fiducia supplicans’ publication, a number of dubia were put forward on July 10, 2023 by Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, Joseph Zen, Juan Sandoval Íñiguez and Robert Sarah on the nature of Divine Revelation, including one on the blessing of same-sex couples. The Pope’s differentiated (an exceptionally personal and immediate) response to the dubiaconcerning whether Divine Revelation should be reinterpreted based on current cultural and anthropological changes demanded openness, reflection and intellectual agility. The cardinals first questioned the reinterpretation of divine revelation “in accordance with the cultural changes of our time and in accordance with the new anthropological perspective that promotes these changes.”[7]Francis replied by saying, among other things, that the richness of revelation cannot be exhausted by the Magisterium. In other words, yes, the Magisterium had to continue to grow and mature in light of current cultural changes and new anthropological perspectives: “That this may lead to a better expression of some past statements of the Magisterium” was therefore “inevitable” and “has happened throughout history.”[8] Moreover, “the Church must constantly discern between that which is essential for salvation and that which is secondary or less directly connected with this goal.”[9] This answer was followed by a second, more stringent question on August 21, 2023, which sought to enforce the usual form of a clear “yes” or “no” answer without theological argumentation. It was answered by the Vatican with Fiducia supplicans.
Of course, the self-appointed concerned guardians of “correct” doctrine have rightly recognized that it is not really about a supposedly new theology of blessing, but that the church’s image of men and women – its theological anthropology – is being put to the test. Unfortunately, the value of the pastoral initiative from the Vatican stands and falls with this.
If one does not rise to this challenge, one begins to “beat around the bush.” How can one bless couples “without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage” (FS, “Presentation”), if “it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning” (FS 4)? The fact that “a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings” has therefore been presented must be considered “a real development beyond what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and in the official texts of the Church” (FS, “Presentation”). However, the actual problem remains programmatically untouched: a Catholic anthropology that recognizes diversity and a resulting sexual morality that is still far removed from its reformulation as “Christian relational ethics.”[10]
A new blessing sophistry?
The letter proports to distinguish between several types of blessing: 1) “The great blessing of God is Jesus Christ” (FS 1); 2) a liturgical blessing, which requires “that what is blessed conformed to God’s will, as expressed in the teachings of the Church” (FS 9) and must correspond “with God’s designs written in creation and fully revealed by Christ the Lord” (FS 11) – as is the case for marriage; and 3) a “simple blessing,” which should not be “subjected to too many moral prerequisites” (FS 12).
But why should it not be “written” in creation, one that is rich in diversity and for which the Creator is praised, that non-binary human beings also strive and may strive for their “natural, proper, and fully human” (cf. FS 4) sexual expression and fulfillment? If the human being – everyone carries “female” and “male” parts within them – is created in the image of God, then it is in their own genetic, hormonal and phenotypic expression that also determines their sexual orientation and gender identity. What is known today from the natural and human sciences does not contradict the pictorial biblical creation narratives. They describe differences, but not strict opposites without any shades and variations, but extremes of a continuum on which all facets and nuances of the phenomena and creatures can be found:
“Day” and “night” include twilight as well as dawn and the blue hour; “land” and “sea” the coasts and the eternal ice, the “stars” light years, white dwarfs and black holes, “fish” and “birds” penguins, flying fish and the diving cormorant, “land and reptiles” also amphibians and flightless birds …[11]
The author concludes:
“… [NC1] And God created human beings in his image, God created them male and female. And some were clearly male or clearly female and were attracted to the opposite sex. But God also created people who were attracted to the same sex or to both sexes. God created male and female people, but also people who were trans or intersex. And God did not ask whether they were female or male, because they all resembled the divine form. Instead, God said: ‘Be fruitful and multiply, be tender to one another and take care of everything I have entrusted to you.’ And then God saw that it was very good. And God blessed them. All of them.”[12]
Such an exegetical reflection dares to convey the biblical faith in creation in the modern context. The church’s doctrine of “man and woman” in its exclusivity, on the other hand, remains more concerned with patriarchal thought patterns and role attributions than with the reality of life for many people of faith who are capable of relationships.
Fiducia supplicans thus classifies blessing in such a way that it does not “approve” that which is created good, but which, according to traditional church teaching, is (persisting in) “sin.” It is true that a person may initially approve (Latin benedicere) of everything that he receives (in descending order) as a blessing from God (including themselves and probably also their loved ones). As the one thus blessed – blessed, approved – they respond and may (ascending) “bless” God with praise and thanksgiving: “No one can be prevented from this act of giving thanks” (FS 28).
A waiver of control that is not one
However, the (descending) blessing of God that is entrusted “as a gesture of grace, protection, and goodness” (FS 18) to the “power to bless” (FS 19) of the church for (controlled) transmission, is of a different kind:
“The blessing that God grants people and that they pass on to their neighbors is transformed into integration, solidarity and the foundation of peace. It is a positive message of comfort, care and encouragement. The blessing expresses the merciful embrace of God and the motherhood of the Church, which invites the faithful to have the same attitude of heart as God towards their brothers and sisters.” (FS 19)
The Church therefore regulates and controls on a small scale (e.g. clerical: “The Lord bless you” as opposed to laical: “The Lord bless us”) as well as on a large scale (marriage is blessed “sacramentally,” for other intimate relationships there should also be no liturgical blessing in the future) who may give which sign of integration and solidarity and who may receive it, who may ask for, wish for and bestow which blessing on themselves and others. In order to prevent “the risk of confusing” the faithful (FS 6), the Church requires or forbids certain ritual-liturgical forms, or declares that “rites and prayers, that could create confusion … are inadmissible” (FS 4). However, liturgical celebrations defined only in terms of demarcation harbors a completely different danger, as the liturgist Benedikt Kranemann (University of Erfurt, Germany) points out: “It is then quickly a matter of gradations that are highly problematic from the basic idea of a worship service, because here as there it is about life and celebration in the presence of God.”[13] And even (and especially) where there are similarities in the quality of the relationship, it would still be “clear to everyone that there are different situations, but also different celebrations, when it is not a man and a woman standing at the front of the church, but two women or two men. People are already that familiar with church teachings.”[14]
Rome, on the other hand, can only just bring itself to “spontaneously” (FS 21, 28, 25 et. al.) concede a “simple gesture” (FS 36) of devotion “on the street” (FS 28), for which no knowledge of the exact moral circumstances of life is necessary, so that the Church’s ministers and her faithful do not “[exhaust] his or her energies in inspecting and verifying” “instead of opening the door to grace.”[15] (FS 25). This, the declaration argues, is done in order to prevent “a pastoral gesture that is so beloved and widespread” from being “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.” (FS 12)
According to “classical theology,” it is described as another form of descending blessing, namely as a request for “actual grace” so “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.” (FS 31) Asking for this can never be wrong. What is wrong, however, is the intention to call such an “intercessory prayer” (FS 33) for healing – and what is probably meant here is for conversion from “adultery” or their “intrinsically disordered grave depravity,”[16] in other words ultimately a renunciation of the sexual union that is lived out – as a “blessing.”
Would a sexually abstinent “Josephite marriage” or “Josephite relationship” actually be worthy of a liturgical blessing? Making it a condition for participation in the sacramental life of the church[17] shows an absurd fixation on the sexual act in view of the reality of relationships between loving and responsible couples, which is idealized and theologically overloaded in marriage, but devalued and considered reprehensible in all other types of relationships.
(Newly) Constructed opposites
The Second Vatican Council explicitly contextualized the extra-liturgical blessings, which had been extremely popular since the Middle Ages, in the context of a church service and linked them to an obligatory word of Scripture, among other things. This is also recommended for domestic blessings, which have been upgraded in light of the Church’s articulation of the “domestic church.” Sacrosanctum Concilium also states:
“Thus, for well-disposed members of the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and sacramentals sanctifies almost every event in their lives; they are given access to the stream of divine grace which flows from the paschal mystery of the passion, death, the resurrection of Christ, the font from which all sacraments and sacramentals draw their power. There is hardly any proper use of material things which cannot thus be directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God.”[18]
Based on this understanding, blessings and services for couples living “irregularly” have already developed in many places as a matter of course in a ritual form, i.e., equipped with proclamation of the word, prayer, and symbolic acts. The order not to “bless” in the church, but on the way and as inconspicuously as possible, is a step backwards according to the (deceptive) motto “(liturgically) less is (pastorally) more.”
Moreover, it is not only the “quality gap” between the (linguistic) actions of ordained ministers and other believers that has become questionable: Although the boundaries between liturgy and so-called popular religiosity have long been blurred, they are drawn again in the declaration – refined by the categories “liturgical or semi-liturgical” (?) and “pastoral,” “ritual” and “spontaneous.” This is ultimately done to the detriment of the liturgy by imposing a strict ban on the ritualization of an “irregular” couple’s blessing:
“… that these non-ritualized blessings never cease being simple gestures that provide an effective means … 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.” (FS 36)
Simple and effective, free, and spontaneous – that’s how pastoral care, perhaps even some church services, should be! Who wouldn’t agree with that? Unbelievable – and fatal! – is the talk of the impending “impoverishment,” even “deprivation” of pastoral care through liturgical ritualization. After all, it is precisely those liturgical rites, treasured by the Church, through which people come before God in all ups and downs to place themselves and their lives under his will of salvation and to find practicable ways of responding to him. But for those who are not worthy of the liturgy, a second-class “pastoral” and ad hoc blessing must suffice?
Playing pastoral and liturgical off against each other betrays a questionable understanding of both: faith and piety are not impoverished by liturgical rites, but rather the other way around if these are withheld. In this way, the church not only loses credibility, but also a core competence. Those who “give blessings” on the street instead of celebrating blessings in church have not gone “to the margins” but want to make the reality of many people’s lives, which they are only reluctantly aware of, as invisible as possible. The fear of “scandal” and of confusion and disorientation is put forward instead of trusting the discernment and comprehension of the faithful to do more. The moral renunciation of control to disguise a lack of respect and a failure of recognition tastes stale. An intercession for deliverance disguised as a blessing (from a relationship that is unworthy in the eyes of the church) will hardly fill a couple with joy and confidence, nor will “this paternal gesture in the midst of their struggle for survival,”[19] which refuses to accept precisely that which requires acceptance.
A disappointed hope …
Rome has tried to make concessions (and arrive in the present) – has it opened the way to a dead end? Or will the road only be closed temporarily? Instead of participating in a liturgical blessing celebration which is worthy of the name, a clerical gesture of “a few seconds”[20] and supposedly “great value for popular piety” (FS 36) is to be made palatable to those affected. Praised as “the really new,” the pastoral addition to blessing theology turns out to be theologically outdated and, on top of that, a fraudulent label, because despite the (intercession) request for various goods (and for “purification”) granted to “irregular” couples, they remain “great sinners” in the Church’s eyes. Is it so difficult in the 21st century to take the step towards a view of humanity based on the ethics of relationships, which recognizes the diversity inscribed in creation and – when lovingly integrated and lived responsibly – understands it as enriching?
So that at some point the road no longer remains closed but can be opened for all those who want to come? The Anglican Church has taken this step and done what Rome is anxious to avoid (and forbid): “The Living in Love and Faith process and the subsequent Prayers of Love and Faith have articulated a Christian anthropology that positively values LGBTQI+ people and their relationships.”[21] Even if the Church of England and the Catholic Church agree that the doctrinal language about sexual disposition, identity and relationships has for too long been characterized by contempt, only the Anglican Church has drawn the decisive conclusion so far:
“There is a clear positive Christian anthropological evaluation in the statement ‘To celebrate in God’s presence the promise that two people have made to each other is an occasion for joy’ lies a clearly positive Christian anthropological evaluation, since one cannot legitimately celebrate in God’s presence that which is ‘disorderly,’ ‘irregular’ or sinful.”[22]
The Pope and his prefect do not give this recognition in Fiducia supplicans. Their “gift to the faithful people”[23] is the cramped permission to bless “a little bit.” Unfortunately, however, “defective” gifts from the Vatican can neither be exchanged nor returned. A small consolation: the declaration remains a gift for those who bless – from now on they can no longer be defamed as heretics but can follow their pastoral convictions at least as far as the church door.
[1]Declaration Fiducia Supplicans On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings (18 December 2023) (vatican.va) (2.1.24)
[2] Cardinal Fernández: Same-sex blessing ‘does not validate or justify anything’ (pillarcatholic.com) (2.1.2024)
[3] Ibid.
[4] Press release concerning the reception of Fiducia supplicans (4 January 2024) (vatican.va) (14.1.2024)
[5] Ibid. 4.
[6] See note 2.
[7] https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_risposta-dubia-2023_en.html.
[8] From the Pope’s reply e); see note. 7.
[9] Ibid. g); as note. 7.
[10] Although such an all-round renewal has been well founded and argued since October 2023: Martin Lintner, Christliche Beziehungsethik. Historische Entwicklungen – Biblische Grundlagen – Gegenwärtige Perspektiven, Freiburg i.Br. u. a.: Herder 2023.
[11] Juliane Link at: https://www.feinschwarz.net/maennlich-und-weiblich-und-alles-dazwischen/ (3.1.2024)
[12] Cf. note 11.
[13] https://www.katholisch.de/artikel/44374-kranemann-segensfeiern-nicht-vorrangig-von-abgrenzung-her-gestalten
[14] Ibid.
[15] St. Francis, Ap. exhort. Evangelii gaudium (November 24, 2013), n. 94, AAS 105 (2013), 1060.
[16] Cf. CCC 2357.
[17] Cf. Familiaris consortio (22. 11. 1981) 84.
[18] Sacrosanctum Concilium 61.
[19] Press release 6; see note. 4.
[20] Ibid. (5); see note 4.
[21] James Hadley, OblSB; cf. https://praytellblog.com/index.php/2024/01/05/more-on-the-trans-tiber-conundrum-of-blessing-the-irregulars/(7.1.2024)
[22] As Note 21.
[23] From the “Presentation” of the declaration; see note 1.