In 1998, Pope John Paul II, a philosopher as well as a theologian, promulgated an encyclical entitled Fides et Ratio (‘Faith and Reason’). It had appeal to me because our very wise Jesuit moral theology professor always drummed into us that any pronouncements on moral theology from Rome must appeal to reason as well as to tradition and authority. Otherwise, they will have no currency with the people of God.
The opening line of John Paul’s encyclical is memorable: ‘Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.’
The recent pronouncement by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) on the blessing of same-sex unions certainly had people assessing its reasonableness as a so-called ‘deposit of faith’.
In our Parliament, we are familiar with ‘questions without notice’. These are raised to challenge a minister, or to give one’s own minister an opportunity to engage in some virtue signalling. So the Roman Congregation often raises a hypothetical question, a dubium, (proposed by anyone or no one) and then answers it with a responsum. In this case the question was: Does the Church have the power to give a blessing to unions of persons of the same sex? And it answered, not unexpectedly, in the negative.
The question, suggested the Congregation, has arisen from the pastoral practice of some priests blessing the civil unions of same-sex couples. This is currently not uncommon.
'If I bless a person, it is a prayer that they will share God’s life, God’s grace, and advance the kingdom in all they do.'
The Congregation indicated that a blessing is a sacramental (something less than a sacrament) and when conferred ‘on particular human relationships, in addition to the right intention of those who participate, it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord.’ A rather complex definition of a blessing.
Originally, things were blessed when they were marked out to be put to God’s service. In the Jewish tradition, for example, objects for use in Temple worship were so blessed and dedicated for such service. If I am asked to bless a house or a car, I stress that the action is not a superstition or a spiritual insurance policy. It is a prayer that the house or car will be used for the advancement of God’s Kingdom here and now, and that the occupiers or owners will be people of virtue and values. When I bless a crucifix for a boy leaving Aloysius' it is to mark it out as a sign of a life spent totally in the service of others, for the good. It is ‘holy’ because the young man might look upon it and be reminded of such a life to be emulated.
If I bless a person, it is a prayer that they will share God’s life, God’s grace, and advance the kingdom in all they do. Recently, I was invited to bless the squad for the CAS Swimming and Diving Championships. It was a prayer for them to compete with all those human and sporting values we espouse here, and for them to be free and graced to swim their best.
The response to the dubium suggested that blessings are permitted of ‘individual persons with homosexual inclinations, who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching’. Only for someone whose life is ‘recognised as objectively ordered’. That is, who are gay and chaste.
But this opens a minefield of reasonable considerations.
First of all, and in a broader consideration, there are many priests I know who also bless heterosexual couples who are married civilly. Some priests participate in the ceremony alongside the civil celebrant. These may be relationships that involve a second marriage by the Catholic party. Their first marriage may not have been annulled because the one divorced could not prove a deficiency in the external forum — that is, before the Marriage Tribunal. But they know in the internal forum — in the integrity of their conscience — that they are in good standing before God. Therefore, while their relationship might be labelled as ‘objectively disordered’ the priest takes them at their word, as acting subjectively at rights with God, and offers a blessing accordingly. Are such blessings now similarly precluded?
But, increasingly, people do not see such same-sex relationships as ‘disordered’. Certainly, this is not part of the language of the students at this College. Nearly two-thirds of Australians voted with a similar perspective in the same-sex marriage ballot four years ago.
Now more than 200 German professors of theology have signed a statement criticising the CDF’s responsum, claiming it is lacking ‘theological depth, hermeneutical understanding, and explanatory rigor.’ They went on to say that ‘The text is characterized by a paternalistic gesture of superiority and discriminates against homosexual people and their life plans.’ Austrian Cardinal Schönborn is the latest of more than a dozen German-speaking bishops similarly critical.
The responsum argues that same-sex relationships are not ‘according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord’. This line of argument draws from one school of Natural Law theory, which suggests that you can read from nature the way to act morally. This physicalist model has its limitations. It limits moral argumentation to anatomy. It is about plumbing more than relationships. The physicalist model might also suggest that men are more physical and powerful than women and therefore are naturally superior, so women should therefore be submissive. A model of very narrow perspectives.
But the more contemporary ‘school of reason’ branch of Natural Law theory is based on the understanding that reason reflecting on human experience – that is, on what it is to be human – is a much richer source of moral assessment. It invites one to consider what is humanly relational, rather than simply to consult Gray’s Anatomy.
There are many people who live in a same-sex relationship, who do so monogamously, lovingly and permanently. Indeed, they find God in the relationship. For them there is no disorder. The Congregation might suggest such a couple are ‘not open to the transmission of life’. But they are no less open to such life transmission than a post-menopausal woman who can be legitimately married and blessed in the Church.
And what of a priest celebrating a Sunday Eucharist where, in the congregation, there are known to be second marriages which are ‘irregular unions’, where heterosexual couples are unmarried and cohabiting (and not ‘as brother and sister’), where there are same-sex couples committed to a life together (in civil unions or otherwise)? Is the priest to offer them Communion (a much more significant Sacrament than a sacramental blessing) when they approach the altar. And if he does, does God come to those communicants in their relationship?
The Congregation’s document encouragingly reminds us that God ‘never ceases to bless each of His pilgrim children in the world’ and ‘takes us where we are, but never leaves us where we are’. We rejoice in that. But it underscores that God ‘does not and cannot bless sin’. True. But the underlying question takes us beyond a physicalist notion of natural law which narrowly points to an objective sin.
It invites us to consider the relationship of a couple — same-sex, divorced and remarried, or otherwise — standing before God, joining faith and reason, in the sanctuary of their conscience and finding God in the relationship.
Some Vatican commentators suggested that the Congregation's document was drafted by a much smaller group of members than normal, and then rushed for the Pope to sign before leaving for the critical visit to Iraq. But then, on his return, a week ago, Francis gave a very pastoral address in Rome. Again, commentators suggest it was a softening or even a correction of the style of the responsum. The Pope spoke of witnessing ‘by a life that takes upon itself the style of God: closeness, compassion and tenderness.’
This, he said, ‘means sowing seeds of love, not with fleeting words but through concrete, simple and courageous examples; not with theoretical condemnations but with gestures of love.’
He added ‘then the Lord, with his grace, makes us bear fruit, even when the soil is dry due to misunderstandings, difficulty or persecution or claims of legalism or clerical moralism.’ Francis concluded by again underscoring the phrase ‘the style of God: closeness, compassion and tenderness.’ The Easter life-giving God.
Considering that, might we be generous enough to allow God to choose whether or not his blessing might be imparted and find a home?
Fr Ross Jones SJ is the rector at St Aloysius'. This article was originally published in The Gonzagan.
Main image: Priest blessing the faithful (Lucas Ninna/Getty Images)