The Problem of Blessing Same-Sex Couples and Its Consequences for the Doctrine and Life of the Catholic Church

[T]he truth is that refusing to “bless” same-sex couples is not an act of disobedience to the Church, but only to those Church authorities who abuse their God-given power.' His Lordship is spot on, as usual!

From Crisis

By His Lordship Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Mary Most Holy in Astana

Fiducia Supplicans deeply and detrimentally affects the Catholic Church as a whole, as well as local Catholic communities.

The Document Fiducia Supplicans, issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on December 18, 2023, and approved by Pope Francis, regarding the possibility of granting “simple,” “spontaneous,” “short,” and “non-liturgical” blessings to couples cohabitating in adultery or in same-sex relationships, deeply and detrimentally affects the Catholic Church as a whole, as well as local Catholic communities.  

1. The true meaning of blessing.

The authorization to “bless” same-sex or adulterous unions does not express an authentically “pastoral” care, because such a “blessing” is not actually a “blessing” in the true Biblical sense. True blessing can occur only when those seeking it are ready to accept the Church’s teaching concerning that for which they seek the blessing and are willing to repent and live according to Church teaching if such is not the case. Those who have willingly turned away from God’s commandments and lead a life that is displeasing to Him, offend Him, are consciously rejecting His grace, and cannot effectively receive God’s blessing without first repenting of their sinful lifestyle. 

Priestly ordination grants the priest spiritual power and authority to give blessings for morally licit purposes that are within the true meaning of “blessing” according to the perennial teaching of the Church. A priest is not authorized to grant blessings beyond that scope, as it would be an offense to God, a transgression of his powers, an abuse of his authority, and a misuse of the blessing because it is being given for purposes other than those for which the blessing is intended. For example, a priest cannot bless a philosophy professor who declares that he will deliver a lecture approving atheism, as this would be tantamount to endorsing this philosopher’s atheistic convictions. Were he to do so, the priest would be complicit in advocating atheism, which is a grave sin, and his blessing would be illicit, as it would contradict natural law and Divinely revealed truths. 

The effects of the priest’s blessing include blessing objects, sanctifying the faithful, and invoking God’s bounty and graces upon them, and in these contexts the term “blessed” is equivalent to the term “sanctified.” For this reason, those who receive the blessing are called to live righteously. Therefore, turning a blind eye to the sin of homosexuality, i.e. engaging in homosexual acts, and going so far as blessing a person who identifies with the homosexual lifestyle, is tantamount to blessing abomination. Never in the Church’s history have priests been given the authority and power to bless sinful lifestyles, as this is tantamount to condoning and encouraging them! 

The Church blesses individuals and groups, generally speaking (such as the blessing given by the priest at the end of a liturgical celebration), even if some of those present are in a state of sin. However, the dilemma lies in “the possibility of blessing same-sex partners,” specifically designating as the recipient of a blessing those couples whose ongoing relationship directly contradicts Divinely revealed truths. The document Fiducia Supplicans says that in this case, a priest must omit “to investigate their situation,” meaning that he is not to inquire about their situation nor discuss it with them. This means turning a blind eye to any wrong situation or state in which they may be living. At the same time, this injunction effectively prevents the priest from calling them to repentance. Indeed, not only is such a “blessing” to no avail, since it will produce no good for those “couples,” but on the contrary, it will produce evil, by leading them to believe that not only are their union and expressions of homo-erotic “love” not sinful, but that they are willed as good by God.

2. The “blessing” of same-sex couples entails spiritual harm for the individuals.

If people do not intend to lead a moral life according to the Word of God, they most likely will not ask for a blessing. Tragically, however, Fiducia Supplicans has prompted “couples in irregular situations and couples of the same sex” to ask for a blessing, despite their intention to continue in an objectively sinful lifestyle. In this manner, this document scandalously permits clerics to bless those who openly lead a life of sin, and who may habitually commit grave sins with no intention of repenting. Heterosexual couples who live together without contracting “marriage” are said to be accorded the right to receive a “simple,” “spontaneous,” “non-liturgical” blessing. Graver still is the blessing given to homosexual couples, since the sin of sodomy is graver than fornication. “Blessing” a same-sex couple logically and implicitly means blessing their sinful lifestyle, and, above all, their conviction that it is inherently good and therefore morally and socially acceptable. And if such unions are licit, why can “polyamorous” relationships not receive a “simple” and “spontaneous” blessing? According to the logic of Fiducia Supplicans, a priest could also licitly bless a married man and his mistress, a priest who lives in open concubinage, a murderous and unrepentant gang member, or a dictator who starves millions of innocent people.

Invoking God’s grace upon those living in flagrantly sinful lifestyles without calling them to repentance desensitizes clergy and laity alike to the sinfulness of homosexual acts, and towards sinful relationships in general. Eventually, sexual sin will no longer be regarded as a violation of God’s commandment “You shall not commit adultery,” but as an acceptable reality to be blessed rather than condemned. 

Those who defend the licitness of Fiducia Supplicans have claimed that blessing a same-sex couple means blessing the two individuals separately and not the relationship, but how can blessing a same-sex couple not involve blessing the relationship that binds the couple together? Indeed, blessing a man and woman who have received the sacrament of marriage not only means blessing each of the spouses separately, but also their sacred bond. The Letter to the Hebrews says, “Let marriage be held in honor” (Hebr. 13:4). This confirms what God established and what is reaffirmed by Our Lord Jesus. The sacrament of marriage binds exclusively one man and one woman for life and is the only institution for a morally lawful exercise of sexuality acceptable to God. 

3. The “blessing” of same-sex couples contradicts the Church’s mission to call to repentance.

One of the primary missions of the Church consists in calling sinners to repentance: “In His name repentance and forgiveness of sins will be proclaimed to all nations” (Luke 24:46). And the very first proclamation Our Lord Jesus utters is: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt. 4:17). The Church was founded and continues to exist, grow and thrive because of the repentance of sinners, which opens them to receive the sanctifying grace of God. It is futile for a person to convert to Catholicism without repenting and leading a new, virtuous and chaste life in Christ. The Church also constantly calls to repentance those who are practicing Catholics, so that they maintain a virtuous life. Neglecting the call to repentance causes great harm to the Church and the faithful. 

By blessing a homosexual couple, a cleric neglects his duty to call homosexuals to repentance, and undermines his duty to call to repentance, with due pastoral love, not only same-sex couples but all those who commit sexual sins, and those who live in a state of sexual sin.  “Blessing” the state of sin reinforces the erroneous moral convictions of sinners, and puts them at ease with their sin, causing them to be less likely to repent. Therefore, those who support such blessings de facto encourage same-sex couples to pursue their sinful lifestyle, for which God will condemn them. Those who authorize the “blessing” of same-sex couples bear the burden and responsibility for the grave spiritual harm caused to these persons. Therefore, such “blessings” fit the traditional definition of scandal, for they lead others into sin.

The Declaration Fiducia Supplicans is evidently not an act of authentic pastoral care, nor an initiative of true charity towards individuals who live in situations that contradict Divinely revealed truths. The purpose of pastoral care is to benefit individuals, by helping sinners to repent, by consoling the afflicted, by aiding the sick, and so on. But no benefit can be obtained from the “blessing” of same-sex couples; on the contrary, there is harm at several levels. The same-sex attracted persons who receive such a “blessing,” as well as the priest who confers the “blessing,” tacitly declare their homosexual activity to be acceptable. This seriously endangers their eternal salvation.  Such a “blessing” would be like a seal given to them by the Church— enabling them to boast that they have received the “blessing of the Church”—and would constitute a milestone in their lives! And there is no reason why they could not go to a priest more than once to receive such a “blessing.” Also, same-sex attracted persons who take part in “gay parades,” dressed in queer attire and brandishing pro-gay signs and slogans, may even walk into a Catholic Church, probably with prior agreement with the priest, stand in a queue, and ask for a “simple” and “spontaneous” blessing.

All this serves as a significant support for “LGBTQ” groups and lobbies and their “gay pride,” and elevates practicing homosexuals to the level of an acceptable “community” within the Church. This “blessing” also reinforces “LGBTQ communities” in the false conviction that their sinful lifestyle is good, thus discouraging them from repenting. Above all, it helps them to justify their militant efforts to obtain the “right” to marry, adopt children, and normalize homosexual activity. In this manner, entire societies, and even some Church communities, will become de facto promotors of the “LGBTQ” ideology.

4. The “blessing” of same-sex couples is a contradiction between the faith and practice of the Church.  

When bishops declare that the Church now “blesses” same-sex couples, they essentially claim that she “blesses” the sin for which God punished Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Gen. 19: 1-29). When a cleric “blesses” persons as a same-sex couple, it means he does not object to them committing to a long-term homosexual relationship. It also declares de facto his consent to the sinful relationship of any two or more individuals, no matter what kind of sexual deviancy they practice.

The greatest potential danger of the decision to “bless” same-sex couples is the possibility of further repercussions. It is futile to clarify that such a “blessing” is just “simple” and “spontaneous” and that it does not affirm the bond between the two parties, just as it is futile to claim that it does not have a liturgical significance. Non-believers and people of other religions do not understand the significance of a Catholic blessing, so they will quite naturally presume that receiving such a “blessing” means contracting some sort of marital bond. It is therefore useless to claim that the decision to bless same-sex couples “does not equate to the sacrament of marriage.” Both the immediate consequences, and the far-reaching hidden implications of this decision, which may be unclear at first glance, are significant on religious, moral, ecclesiastical, and societal levels. These effects will be difficult to remedy, and the damage caused by them, which is highly likely to worsen, will likewise be very challenging to correct. 

If two laymen in a same-sex relationship can receive a “blessing,” then there is no reason why a homosexual priest with his sexual partner cannot receive one. There would thus be individuals in the Catholic Church, both clerics and laity, who appear to have the “right” to live permanently in sin while the ecclesiastical authority not only ignores but directly encourages their sinful lifestyle. These “blessings” will thus become a means of moral corruption in the community of the faithful, especially minors and young people. Why would anyone become a member of a church that de facto promotes and blesses sin and homosexuality? 

5. The “blessing” of same-sex couples and the abuse of the word “discrimination.”

Fiducia Supplicans is being wielded as a weapon against faithful Catholics—clergy and laity alike—as it claims these “blessings” are a pastoral initiative of love and care towards same-sex attracted persons, who suffer from discrimination within the Church. But those who make this claim are confusing language. “Discrimination” is currently used to mean unfair or uncharitable behavior towards others, and in this sense all Catholics agree that charity, in the proper sense of the word, is to be shown to all. But one must also distinguish and differentiate between good and evil. This is certainly something which not only rational creatures do, but which God Himself most certainly does, as He distinguishes or discriminates between evil and good actions, condemning the former and blessing the latter. Those who accuse the Church of “discriminating” against homosexuals also condemn thereby any distinction between good and evil conduct.

6. The “blessing” of same-sex couples and gender ideology propaganda.

Fiducia Supplicans is also a weapon that the Church’s enemies and “LGBTQ” groups can readily use to corrupt societies and make them lenient towards sinful lifestyles. They can easily use this Vatican document as a powerful means to demand legal status for same-sex unions in the civil sphere, and acceptance of this status within the Catholic Church—only exacerbating the deep divide already present within the Church. 

Fiducia Supplicans creates a situation in which faithful bishops and priests serving in countries where sodomy is now legally permitted could potentially be prohibited from speaking out against it, and banned from inviting homosexuals to repentance, and in which therapists could be prohibited from treating those seeking healing. How will bishops and priests be able to say that their Church’s teaching does not allow them to “bless” same-sex couples? Indeed, they will be told that their Church has authorized such “blessings,” and that their refusal to grant them constitutes “hostile behavior” against homosexuals, thus exposing them to being prosecuted, expelled, and prevented from serving as priests. 

7. The “blessing” of same-sex couples at a wedding-like ceremony.

Fiducia Supplicans claims that the blessing is to be “simple,” “spontaneous,” and “non-liturgical.” However, same-sex partners will likely schedule an appointment with the priest to receive this “spontaneous” and “non-liturgical” blessing and may even contract a same-sex “marriage” in a civil court or non-Catholic “church” just before receiving it. It may even happen that this “blessing” will be accompanied by a sermon. What can prevent this as long as the “blessing is simple and spontaneous”? The priest might compose a “non-liturgical” prayer for “the blessing,” which may be relatively long and include moving, emotional language that resembles the language of “commitment” used in the sacrament of marriage. The terms “simple,” “spontaneous” and “short” are open to a wide variety of interpretations. 

8. The “blessing” of same-sex couples and the acceptance of other sinful situations.

Civil authorities, especially in countries that have legalized “same-sex marriage,” will naturally welcome the decision of certain clerics within the Catholic Church to “bless” same-sex couples. And should this practice become common in the Church, it will be difficult to bring it to a halt. Is Fiducia Supplicans a prelude to the request for a kind of marriage ceremony for same-sex couples in the Catholic Church? The ease with which this “blessing” has developed leads one to believe that there are long-term, far-reaching latent goals behind its issuance. 

Given the positive response of many ecclesiastical and secular groups towards Fiducia Supplicans, the significance of this “simple” or “short” blessing may easily be expanded well beyond its initial explicit intent. Indeed, as noted above (n. 2), Fiducia Supplicans opens the door to an endless array of sinful situations. If a same-sex couple may be “blessed,” why not two same-sex attracted minors who approach a priest for a “blessing”? What is to prevent “blessing” an adult homosexual man who presents himself to a priest with a minor? According to the logic of Fiducia Supplicans, the priest cannot refuse to “bless” them, since the document does not say anything about the age of those who seek such a “blessing.” An inquiry by the priest into the age of the parties could well lead to the sort of “exhaustive moral analysis” which the Declaration prohibits. 

9. The “blessing” of same-sex couples and the abuse of ecclesiastical obedience.

Another gravely detrimental effect of Fiducia Supplicans is that those who do not approve of same-sex couples within the heart of the Catholic Church will now be labeled as disobeying Church authority. However, the truth is that refusing to “bless” same-sex couples is not an act of disobedience to the Church, but only to those Church authorities who abuse their God-given power. Refusing to give such “blessings” is, in fact, true obedience to God—who is more worthy of being obeyed.

Secular powers, “LGBTQ” lobbies, and anti-Church agendas are ultimately the driving force behind the issuance of this Declaration, whose aim is to sow the seed of deep doubt in the heart of the Church. And they will surely exert significant pressure to compel Catholics to accept and promote it. They will falsely invoke the obligation to obey Church teaching, and those priests and faithful who criticize Fiducia Supplicans, and refuse to implement it, will be accused of being unfaithful to the Pope. 

10. The “blessing” of same-sex couples and its influence on children and youth.

Today, Catholic parents and educators are confronted with considerable difficulties in teaching sound Catholic morality, especially sexual morality, since children and teenagers are constantly being bombarded by “LGBTQ” ideas via social media, and even worse, by many Catholic schools and even Catholic clergy. Now, on top of this, Fiducia Supplicans conveys to minors and teenagers the message that the Church accepts and approves of same-sex couples and their relationships. Catholic educators and catechism teachers, deceived by the practice of “blessing” same-sex couples, may very well alter their teaching on true Catholic morality, to the point of even justifying and propagating, directly or indirectly, the homosexual lifestyle and sexual deviancy more generally. 

Conclusion

Fiducia Supplicans seriously undermines the Catholic faith and morals, turning the Catholic Church, at least in practice, into a welcoming and nurturing environment for unrepentant homosexuals and adulterers who lead sinful lifestyles, instead of calling such sinners to repentance. Isaiah the prophet declares, “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness … for they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts” (Is 5:20, 24). This condemnation refers especially to the shepherds of the Church who lead people astray.

Fiducia Supplicans is neither authentically pastoral nor authentically magisterial, as it undermines the unchanging Divine truth and the constant teaching of the Church’s Magisterium regarding the intrinsic evil of sexual acts outside a valid marriage, specifically homosexual acts. This impedes the Church’s ability to convincingly reflect the true face of the Risen Christ and to radiate the beauty of His truth before the whole world.