We could have done without it.
There are a few questions I have – “doubts,” one might say…
- What exactly was the need for addressing this issue in the first place, as opposed to any number of issues which seem much more pressing and much more serious to the vast majority of informed observers, especially given the very recent (and largely opposite) treatment by the DDF?
- Is it Roman opinion that there were clergy “on the fence” about this practice who will now fundamentally change how they minister?
- Did not occur to the DDF that, in fact, all kinds of “irregular couples” have been blessed for ages – even “liturgically” in the strictest sense – ever since such people have showed up at Mass and stayed to the end, when everyone present gets a blessing?
- Why is it presumed to be appropriate or advantageous to give “one” blessing to two people whose “couplehood” in and of itself clearly presents seriously problematic moral data, rather than two individual blessings to the two individuals of the “couple” (or however many members of a polyamorous relationship)? (This is the most important question.) Is it because some priests have very tired arms and can only muster one motion of the hand? Or are drive-by blessings a thing in some places? Yes, no? What is it?
- If the confusion and blowback were foreseen, what is the need for all the explanation, especially since the document said not to expect clarification? If the confusion and blowback were not foreseen, why? What is the plan to keep this from happening again? Is there one?
- If “irregular couples” can be blessed “non-liturgically” or “pastorally,” does this extend to other groups or associations which of themselves or in their proper context are morally problematic, such as terrorist camps, conventions of abortionists, and other such entities, especially given that these seem to need grace even more than “irregular couples”? If not, why not? Is it merely a prudential consideration, or is it something intrinsic to the act itself?
- Why was it not recommended instead merely to pray for “irregular couples,” rather than to “bless” them, especially given that much of the world is unable to distinguish “blessing a couple” from “blessing a union” or even from “witnessing a marriage”?
So, those are some questions. The argument that some have made about cohabiting heterosexual couples receiving blessings (i.e. in the context of a marriage preparation session) fails; the reason is that such a relationship does not present a problem in and of itself the way that adulterous, homosexual, or polygamous relationships do. There is a legitimate “telos” or “end” of the relationship as such with a single man and a single woman. Not so with the “irregular.”
I really do think that ignorance is a better explanation than malice. I also think that Fiducia Supplicans, for all its issues, has called attention to a serious problem which has until now not been so evident – we have a very weak understanding all around of what exactly “blessings” are and how they work. I hope to do a follow-up post in some weeks to go through some points which could be helpful (i.e. the distinction between invocative blessings and constitutive blessings).
We need to pray. Don’t get angry, get pious.