Pope Says There Could Be Ways to Bless Same-Sex Unions

(VATICAN CITY) — Pope Francis has suggested there could be ways to bless same-sex unions, responding to five conservative cardinals who challenged him to affirm church teaching on homosexuality ahead of a big meeting where LGBTQ+ Catholics are on the agenda.

The Vatican on Monday published a letter Francis wrote to the cardinals on July 11 after receiving a list of five questions, or “dubia,” from them a day earlier. In it, Francis suggests that such blessings could be studied if they didn’t confuse the blessing with sacramental marriage.

New Ways Ministry, which advocates for LGBTQ+ Catholics, said the letter “significantly advances" efforts to make LGBTQ+ Catholics welcomed in the church and “one big straw towards breaking the camel’s back” in their marginalization.

The Vatican holds that marriage is an indissoluble union between man and woman. As a result, it has long opposed gay marriage. But even Francis has voiced support for civil laws extending legal benefits to same-sex spouses, and Catholic priests in parts of Europe have been blessing same-sex unions without Vatican censure.

Francis’ response to the cardinals, however, marks a reversal from the Vatican’s current official position. In an explanatory note in 2021, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said flat-out that the church couldn’t bless gay unions because “God cannot bless sin.”

In his new letter, Francis reiterated that matrimony is a union between a man and a woman. But responding to the cardinals’ question about homosexual unions and blessings, he said “pastoral charity” requires patience and understanding and that regardless, priests cannot become judges “who only deny, reject and exclude.”

“For this reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of benediction, requested by one or more persons, that do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage,” he wrote. “Because when a benediction is requested, it is expressing a request for help from God, a plea to be able to live better, a trust in a father who can help us to live better.”

He noted that there are situations that are objectively “not morally acceptable.” But he said the same “pastoral charity” requires that people be treated as sinners who might not be fully at fault for their situations.

Francis added that there is no need for dioceses or bishops conferences to turn such pastoral charity into fixed norms or protocols, saying the issue could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis “because the life of the church runs on channels beyond norms.”

Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, welcomed the pope’s openness.

"“The allowance for pastoral ministers to bless same-gender couples implies that the church does indeed recognize that holy love can exist between same-gender couples, and the love of these couples mirrors the love of God,” he said in a statement. “Those recognitions, while not completely what LGBTQ+ Catholics would want, are an enormous advance towards fuller and more comprehensive equality.”

The five cardinals, all of them conservative prelates from Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas, had challenged Francis to affirm church teaching on gays, women’s ordination, the authority of the pope and other issues in their letter.

They published the material two days before the start of a major three-week synod, or meeting, at the Vatican at which LGBTQ+ Catholics and their place in the church are on the agenda.

The signatories were some of Francis’ most vocal critics, all of them retired and of the more doctrinaire generation of cardinals appointed by St. John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI.

They were Cardinals Walter Brandmueller of Germany, a former Vatican historian; Raymond Burke of the United States, whom Francis axed as head of the Vatican supreme court; Juan Sandoval of Mexico, the retired archbishop of Guadalajara; Robert Sarah of Guinea, the retired head of the Vatican’s liturgy office; and Joseph Zen, the retired archbishop of Hong Kong.

Brandmueller and Burke were among four signatories of a previous round of “dubia” to Francis in 2016 following his controversial opening to letting divorced and civilly remarried couples receive Communion. Then, the cardinals were concerned that Francis’ position violated church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. Francis never responded to their questions, and two of their co-signatories subsequently died.

Francis did respond this time around. The cardinals didn’t publish his reply, but they apparently found it so unsatisfactory that they reformulated their five questions, submitted them to him again and asked him to simply respond with a yes or no. When he didn’t, the cardinals decided to make the texts public and issue a “notification” warning to the faithful.

The Vatican’s doctrine office published his reply to them a few hours later, though it did so without his introduction in which he urged the cardinals to not be afraid of the synod.

  • CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I like how they say things like “there may be a way” and “will be studied” as if they’re trying to crack some immutable law of physics and not just taking some bigotry out of the stuff they made up.

    • Ace0fBlades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The Catholic Church is an ancient institution built on centuries of men just writing up and codifying ideas. They need to be able to find loopholes in this box they’ve thought themselves into if they want to change direction on something like this at this point in the game.

      Just admitting there is might be a way is enough for the old and embittered to declare this pope the antichrist (again)

      • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah, I think people need to focus on this aspect the most. They are not going to deny their book. Worming their way through scripture to claim a new fundamental way of understanding seventeen hundred year old writings is going to be incredibly difficult to do. It’s written so explicity. While certain texts written in different areas of the world have been considered non-canonical The Bible™ has never had a serious alteration aside from translation errors that may not have understood the original authors intent. The church will identify the change as moral progress and a better understanding of God, but don’t expect yhem to condemn those who used scripture against homsexuality previously.

      • Heavybell@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Isn’t there a line in the bibble that basically amounts to “if you all agree on it, I’ll go along with whatever” from god? Something like “if you hold it true on earth, I will hold it true in heaven”?

  • SpaceBar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    Old ignorant men, clinging to vestiges of power, desperately trying to hold back the progress of time.

    Conservatives, Republicans and Religious Leaders have so much in common, don’t they?

  • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Francis never responded to their questions, and two of their co-signatories subsequently died.

    The phrasing makes it seem like they died of going unanswered lmao

  • cabron_offsets@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    All these fairy-tale-believing mfs need to smoke a blunt, get laid (i.e., by an adult) and chill the fugg out.

  • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    … isn’t the whole point of his mythos that he has the keys to heaven and whatever he decides here shall be done above? Just end the stupid bigotry, Jesus would approve of that.

  • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    could. further investigation is needed apbarently.

    It’s a yes/no question. just sit in your chair, invoke infallibility and say it’s ok. Couple of minutes tops