According to nature and against nature: the problem of homosexual unions in a recent document from the Church
God blesses human sexuality.
"He created them, male and female”
Genesis 1:27
The Fiducia supplicans (Supplicating Trust) Declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [1] is a fundamentally pastoral document, which, however, engages, reaffirms, and clarifies truths of faith concerning God's will regarding human sexuality and, therefore, the Christian conception of the man with particular reference to the dignity of sexuality as derived from the divine plan derived from the Book of Genesis, or protological, and redemptive-salvific, and eschatological-glorious.
Based on these doctrinal principles, the document provides instructions regarding the conduct that priests should adopt towards remarried divorced couples or homosexuals seeking blessings. To address this request, which may be based on a misunderstanding or lack of a right intention or assume a mistaken concept of blessing, the Declaration extensively discusses in doctrinal form the sacramental nature of blessings with a breadth never before seen in the Church's Magisterium.
It highlights an important biblical concept, a content of Christian revelation, an ancient practice, albeit flawed, also present in other religions, a practice still widespread today, whose origin, essence, effectiveness, and purpose had not been adequately considered by sacramental theology and liturgy until now.
The Declaration explains that the blessing, as derived from Sacred Scripture and Tradition, in the constant practice of the Church, is an act of divine worship and, at the same time, of fraternal charity. Through it, the priest or minister or superior, by grace or power granted by God, communicates to the one being blessed a special grace that enlightens, consoles, sanctifies, purifies, and strengthens. Its efficacy does not depend on the performed work (ex opere operato), that is, on the supernatural energy intrinsic to the gesture, which in this case is a sacrament, but depends on the faith, right intention, and goodwill of the receiving subject operating in grace (ex opere operantis). As for the one giving the blessing, they perform a gesture accompanied by words that communicate grace to increase what is already possessed.
According to Scripture, blessing is primarily an act of God. Indeed, divine blessing is a divine benefit, a gift, or grace that only God can bestow. Being blessed by God is a very concrete thing in the Bible: generating children, acquiring wealth, health, fame, glory, power, well-being, and happiness.
And the blessing imparted by the priest, prophet, father, or man of God has similar effects, although obviously of lesser magnitude. Likewise, the opposite of blessing, namely, cursing, brings misery, punishment, suffering, and misfortune. Thus, in Matthew 25, Christ blesses the chosen and curses the reprobate.
So, we should not be deceived by the etymological derivation of the word "bless," meaning "to speak well," or "to speak well of someone," which has its equivalent in Greek, eu-loghìa. Divine blessing is not merely speaking, declaring, or wishing; it is not simply uttering a verbal formula, although the Word of God is already a substantial reality, an entity, action, or concrete fact and not just a sign of a concept, as is the case with our word.
Indeed, the Hebrew etymology of blessing, berakà, is berèk, which means knee. What does the knee have to do with it? Anyone who desires to be blessed must kneel before the one giving the blessing, just as one kneels before God, since the one giving the blessing, by blessing, performs a divine gesture, is a minister of divine blessing, for according to Scripture, blessing is an act of doing, giving, producing, granting grace, or strength, or virtue, or faculty, or power, a precious gift, a creation, which belongs only to God, or first and foremost to God. This is why the celebrant, at the end of certain solemn Masses, says, 'Bow down for the blessing.'
Scripture then foresees a descending blessing and an ascending blessing: the descending one is the blessing in the strong, original, productive sense that comes from God and that God gives either directly or through His ministers.
The ascending blessing is gratitude, 'eucharist,' properly euloghìa, the word with which we speak of the Lord every good thing and praise Him for all the benefits, blessings, and graces received. Quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quae tribuit mihi? Calicem salutarem accipiam et nomen Domini invocabo ( What shall I render to the Lord for all the things He has bestowed upon me? I will take the saving cup and invoke the name of the Lord ), as the celebrant says in the Mass.
God blesses us with deeds because He is our Creator. And we can only bless Him with our poor words because what can we add to a divine being? This is why the Bible, which has such a sense of being, gives blessing such a concrete meaning.
In any case, the blessing has a supernatural power lower than that of the sacrament. For this reason, it is called 'sacramental' and not a sacrament because while the sacrament resurrects the soul from the death of mortal sin, the blessing presupposes that the one being blessed is already in grace. Therefore, it is limited to strengthening the grace that one already possesses, and this increase is greater the greater the spiritual fervor of the one being blessed.
For this reason, it is clear that anyone who requests a blessing in a state of mortal sin, without the will to repent and repair and correct, but almost to receive approval and protection for their bad behavior, would not only receive any blessing but would be cursed by God, which is not advisable.
Therefore, it must be the utmost care of the minister of the blessing, as recommended by the Fernandez document, to verify and carefully assess the spiritual situation, ideas, intentions, desires, or purposes of an irregular couple that might ask to be blessed. This is to avoid endorsing with an untimely and ineffective blessing their possible belief that sinful conduct can be blessed, which they have no intention of abandoning or correcting. If the minister suspects this misconception, he would do well, as the Declaration orders, to clarify that he blesses the aspect of honesty in their union and that the blessing, to be effective, assumes in them the will to correct their sin.
A blessing with a dual purpose: promoting and purifying at the same time
One very interesting aspect of the Declaration is its correlation between blessing and the value of human sexuality. Essentially, it addresses how, why, under what conditions, and for what purpose one should bless the exercise of sex. Consequently, it delves into the importance that sex holds in human life, as well as its significance in the realms of salvation and the eschatological glorification of humanity.
Undoubtedly, the Church has always blessed marriages. But what should be done regarding those unions or couples that it deems 'irregular' when they seek blessings? The Declaration explains what is meant by irregular unions: those formed outside or against the indissoluble and sacramental union between a man and a woman, expressing their eternal love and intending for procreation and the upbringing of offspring.
As we all know, the Church refers to this union as 'marriage.' Consequently, as clarified by Cardinal Fernandez, the union of remarried divorcees and homosexuals cannot be called marriage. It can be termed, as the State calls it, a 'civil union.'
The current issue within the Church is whether such couples can receive a blessing. The answer is yes, but under very specific conditions, outlined here with the fundamental clarification that the document does not intend in any way to legitimize adultery or sodomy. On the contrary, it offers, through a special blessing, assistance in avoiding these sins or remedying them if committed.
This document thus represents an innovation and advancement in the Church's pastoral approach. As Cardinal Fernandez emphasizes repeatedly, it follows the tradition of the unchanging and immutable teaching of the Church concerning sexual ethics based on the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue, which is divine law. In particular, from its origins, the Church, echoing biblical teachings and the voice of natural moral conscience, has consistently condemned the sin of sodomy [2].
With the DDF document, the Church makes a historic turn in its pastoral approach to irregular couples: no longer rejecting them from receiving blessings but consenting to the blessing. However, this is subject to very specific conditions outlined and explained in the Declaration. This innovation points toward more evangelical care for the wounds of the male and female human nature—undoubtedly not entirely corrupted but weakened by the consequences of original sin and personal sins, with inherent tendencies contrary to the true needs and purposes of human nature. These inclinations sometimes drive individuals to sin so strongly that the will succumb to the violence of passion without full deliberation, almost compelled, doing, as St. Paul says, the evil that one would not do and that, if free and not so drawn to sin, one would certainly not commit. In these conditions, guilt diminishes; instead, guilt is full when the will acts in full freedom, as sin is a voluntary act.
These impulses, constituting the so-called 'concupiscence,' are so influential and conditioned that they appear as second nature. Thus, it becomes challenging to distinguish in the current state of fallen nature what is natural and what is unnatural, what is according to nature and what is against nature, what is normal and what is abnormal, what is healthy and what is sick, what the good tendencies are and what the bad ones are, what the good actions are and what the bad ones are, what the model or the ideal or the rule to follow is, and what, on the contrary, is the false and deceptive purpose: in a word, what is the law to observe and the false law to avoid.
It is evident that answering these questions requires a correct concept of human nature—a precise, secure, and objective definition of human nature, understanding what man is, the conditions of his existence, the purpose and meaning of his being and living, as well as his duties and rights, the actions to be taken, and the laws to follow to achieve the purpose of his existence.
In the path of the traditional Magisterium of the Church
To interpret and understand this Document in its proper sense, and not see its novelty as a contradiction to the Church's consistent teaching on sexuality, it is necessary to read it in light of the previous Magisterium, as expressed, for example, in the Declaration of the CDF in 1975 'Persona humana.'
In it, it is recalled that:
"Divine Revelation and, in its proper order, philosophical wisdom, by emphasizing authentic human needs, thereby necessarily reveal the existence of immutable laws inscribed in the constitutive elements of human nature, which are identical in all beings endowed with reason. Furthermore, the Church constantly preserves and transmits without error the truths of the moral order and authentically interprets not only the positive revealed law but also the principles of the moral order that arise from human nature itself" (No. 4).
Hence, the rules of moral action are derived from the purposes of human nature known in its essential characteristics, and, regarding sexual ethics, they are derived from the nature and natural purposes of the male-female duality.
An important teaching of the pontifical Magisterium in this regard is given by St. John Paul II in the general audiences held from 1979 to 1982 on the condition of man and woman in the original plan of creation and the eschatological perspective of the future glorious resurrection [3]. In these, the Pope clarifies the anthropological and spiritual value of human sexuality, illustrating how God wanted the male-female couple in the protological plan to establish human sociality and procreation within marriage, and so that in the eschatological condition, 'the two become one flesh' (Gen 2:25). In present life, marriage remains, but in future life, marriage will no longer be necessary because the reproduction of the species will have ceased, and only the union of the two will remain.
The sin of sodomy is against the animal nature of man
The right moral action is to act according to the needs and tendencies of the animal-rational nature of man. Sin is to act against the sound interest of these needs and the purposes of these tendencies. Sexuality belongs to the animal standard of human nature, even though it is true that it also influences the higher level of reason and spirit. For this reason, there is a masculine and a feminine way of thinking, reasoning, feeling, willing, and loving.
Sin is against human nature and its law in two ways or at two levels. Since man is a reasonable animal, unnaturalness can be against reason or animality. Either due to deviated reason or due to deviated animality. Sins against reason certainly offend what is specifically human in us, reason, but they may leave the normal functioning of animality intact. For example, pride, duplicity, injustice, or impiety can be found in a chaste, sober, and temperate subject.
Instead, sins related to sexuality, if they do not conflict with the specificity of human nature as rational, can nevertheless be contrary not only to reason but also to the animal nature of man, which is his nature in the radical and fundamental sense, as it constitutes the generic element, while reason gives the specific difference.
[ The use of a genus (Greek: genos) and a differentia (Greek: diaphora) in constructing a definition goes back at least as far as Aristotle (384–322 BC). Furthermore, a genus may fulfill certain characteristics that qualify it to be referred to as a species, a term derived from the Greek word eidos, which means "form" in Plato's dialogues but should be taken to mean "species" in Aristotle's corpus. (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus%E2%80%93differentia_definition, Ed.)]
The severity with which St. Paul condemns sodomy (Romans 1:24-26) has not lost its value if we consider the act performed with full awareness and deliberate consent. However, modern psychology has discovered how homosexual inclination can have a neuro vegetative basis, making the inclination almost irresistible for the subject and therefore appearing as a natural tendency. This does not prevent the individual from recognizing the sinful nature of the act and employing all goodwill to avoid it. The individual, no matter how hard they try, cannot restrain the impulse. It is important to keep in mind the principle 'ad impossibilia nemo tenetur' here.
This also does not exempt the subject from any responsibility because it is clear that in a wakeful state and except in cases of a total loss of reason, the subject always retains a degree of free will, committing at least to struggle and resistance, even though the will succumbs to the violence of passion as if it were forced, although it remains free by nature. Well, the guilt will be less, but still present, because the will has exercised its freedom to the extent that it can.
To clarify the degree of guilt of sexual sins, specifically that of sodomy, it is useful at this point to recall the difference between these sins, traditionally called 'carnal,' linked to sensible passions for sensible objectives, where passion is moved by the will, and the so-called 'spiritual sins,' directed towards spiritual objectives, where the will must correct its bad tendencies, and the will does not act on passions but on itself.
Here, the guilt is greater because the will is not excused or mitigated by the violence of passion (for example, homosexual attraction), but what it wants, it wants in full freedom, although pressed by the bad inclination of the will (for example, the tendency to pride).
Here, therefore, the guilt is greater not only because the act is freer and therefore more voluntary—remember that sin is an act of the will—but also because the object or matter of the sin is more serious: respect for sex in the case of sexual sin; the honor of God in the case of spiritual sins. Now, it is worse to offend God than one's sex.
The Philosophical Roots of Genderism
The serious problem of determining what in morality is good and what is bad, to distinguish the normal from the abnormal, sin from good action, arises from the fact that, since human nature must be the reference point for the foundation of ethics and the knowledge of moral law, today, often, the existence of human nature is either not admitted or not recognized. It is not acknowledged in the sense of a nature determined by divine will with its own specific, immutable, and universal essence—male and female, equal and identical in all individuals—regulated by the moral law established by God in this sense.
We are under the influence of Rahner's anthropology [4], for whom human nature is either formless material waiting to be shaped or determined by the person, each with their own free choice. Alternatively, it is the essence of man in itself, undetermined and infinitely determinable by each according to their choice, intolerant of finiteness but inclined to overcome every limit.
Thus, for Rahner, human nature is not something already given, presupposed to us, preceding our actions, with its objective, fixed, and universal laws. According to this view, our task would simply be to put them into practice. And so human nature should be the effect of our creative action, our free initiative, so that each of us must establish and determine our essence, continually changing it as we prefer. Each person's essence is different from another's, depending on what they decide to be.
The metaphysical roots of this conception of the human person lie in Rahner's concept of being, where he does not distinguish thinking from being and being from thought. Rather, he identifies being and thought in the manner of Parmenidean and Hegelian monism. However, this identification occurs only in God, the self-subsistent Being that coincides with His thinking [5]. In contrast, the human being is distinct from his thinking, and his thinking is distinct from being the object of his thought. According to Rahner, human beings and thinking coincide with the divine being and thinking, resulting in pantheism.
Rahner, in fact, states:
'The essence of being is to know and be known in an original unity, which we want to call consciousness or transparency ("subjectivity," "knowledge") of the being of every entity'[6].
From this view of being, it follows that man and God are not distinct as two persons. Since being is one and absolute, as the identity of being and thought—therefore as God—man and God are, as in Hegel, the two terms of God's becoming according to the transcendence of man becoming God and the immanence of God becoming a man.
For Rahner, the Incarnation of the Word, God-Man, like for Hegel, is not the result of a free divine will or choice, but God's very essence. Therefore, for him, a person is not human unless they become God, and God is not God unless He becomes man. However, as Joseph Ratzinger pointed out [7], this entails an assimilation of human freedom to divine freedom:
«Fondamentalement Rahner a très largement repris le concept de liberté propre à la philosohie idéaliste – un concept de liberté qu’en réalité ne convient qu’à l’Esprit absolu - à Dieu – et nullement à l’homme».
('Fundamentally, Rahner has very largely taken up the concept of freedom proper to idealistic philosophy—a concept of freedom that only suits the absolute Spirit—to God—and not at all to man.')
From this concept of freedom, Rahner derives the idea of human nature as a subjectivity that freely shapes and creates its essence. For Rahner, there is no specific, definable, immutable, determined human nature, identical for everyone, the basis of universal rights and duties. This nature would also be the subject of absolute, non-negotiable values and universal brotherhood. Instead, every person determines their individual and concrete essence as they wish.
For Rahner, animality remains external to the person and does not enter into his definition. For him, the person is a self-aware spirit, in the manner of Descartes, only to then resolve the subject in its empirical historicity, without possessing anything that transcends time and history, a simple result of biological evolution, in the manner of Darwin and Teilhard de Chardin [8]. So, it is a synthesis of materialism and idealism.
Hence, the consequence is that sexual difference does not contribute at all to the determination of a male and female personality. Being male and female is entirely foreign to the essence of the human person, thus confusing man with the angel since it is clear that the angel is not gendered. Consequently, gender loses any reference to moral action, and thus, freedom is granted to each individual to manipulate their gender as they please. Hence, the legalization of homosexuality.
From this conception of human nature, it is not difficult to deduce genderist ethics, which does not consider human sexuality as a natural given, a desired entity created and determined once and for all by God in its identity and duality as male and female and oriented towards its own specific, immutable natural end, regulated by specific natural moral laws that aim to make possible, through their fulfillment, the realization or achievement of natural ends.
Unfortunately, genderists and modernists leverage Rahner's ideas to promote the legalization of sodomy, which is no longer recognized as a sin against nature but, as Father James Martin SJ says, simply as a 'different sexual orientation.'
The Declaration Reiterates the Condemnation of Sodomy
The Declaration reaffirms in various ways the prohibition and condemnation of homosexual relationships, although it does so in a veiled, allusive, hinted, and implicit manner, perhaps due to excessive consideration, which, however, hampers clarity. Clear signs of this condemnation include:
1. Repeated references to traditional morality (Introduction, paras. 3, 4).
2. Repeated clarification that homosexual union should not be confused with marriage, an obvious allusion to its lack of marital integrity (paras. 4, 5, 6, 11, 30, 31, 36).
3. The prohibition of extramarital sexual relations is reiterated (para. 11).
4. Emphasis on the necessity for the couple to undertake a journey of penance and conversion, renouncing sin (paras. 10, 22, 27, 31, 32, 34).
5. It is specified that the blessing is not a liturgical ritual but an informal spontaneous act, implying that it cannot be formalized due to insufficient moral dignity (paras. 24, 33, 36, 40).
6. The union is defined as "irregular," signifying that it lacks adherence to moral, canonical, and legal rules (paras. 26, 31, 38).
7. The blessing is prohibited in conjunction with the celebration of the civil rite, indicating that the Church does not recognize any legitimacy or legality in homosexual relationships (para. 39).
8. Sodomy is by no means legitimized (paras. 10, 11, 31, 34, 40).
The blessing values the honest aspect of the union
However, one might ask: Why the blessing? What is there to bless in the union? The perverted aspect is not the only recognizable element in the union. It is essential to consider that, being a union of two persons, there may be an element of honesty (paras. 28, 31), arising from the spiritual factor that can be nurtured by charity and, therefore, willed or pleasing to God. This is the aspect to be blessed, while the blessing can also aim to help the two individuals in the arduous but necessary path of gradual liberation from sin.
It must be said, then, that those who interpret the Declaration as legitimizing or liberalizing homosexual relationships or cohabitation, as a shameful and scandalous concession to laxity and subjectivism, an abandonment of the ascetic aspect of Christian conduct, or a blasphemous blessing or condoning of sin, are either individuals who instrumentalize the Church's teaching for their reprehensible purposes or remain in a backward position, clinging to a standard of conduct toward homosexuals and divorced remarried individuals that no longer corresponds to what God now asks of us through the Holy Mother Church.
In these dissonant positions, which are at odds for opposite reasons with true communion with the Church, we once again find the exasperating conflict between traditionalists and modernists, which has plagued the Church for sixty years, entangled in a foolish controversy surrounding the Second Vatican Council, whose meaning neither group has understood.
Modernists believe that the Church's Magisterium teaches nothing stable, fixed, or determined, but that its teachings continuously change or evolve throughout history. Lefebvrists want to maintain what needs to be abandoned or surpassed, as they do not distinguish in the Church's doctrine and practice what cannot change from what can and must change. They fail to understand that the Church is firm in principles but cannot stop on the journey and progress toward the kingdom of God.
Critical Observations
The document aims not to use language that might sound even minimally offensive towards irregular couples. However, in this praiseworthy intent, there are undeniably excessive considerations that end up maintaining language so vague and nuanced that it risks generating confusion. There is a suspicion of some legitimation of sin, which, in reality, is not the case. This can only be indirectly understood from the allusive and veiled language, composed of implications and implicit meanings, and by staying too much on generalities when, in my opinion, it would have been better to call sins by their name, explaining above all why they are sins with rigorous and well-founded arguments.
For example, it would not have been bad to use the term 'sodomy' to indicate homosexual practices, clearly identified by the episode narrated in Gen 19:1-11, where the inhabitants of Sodom ask Lot if they can fornicate with some men in his company. Therefore, the interpretation currently in circulation, evidently functional to genderism, according to which Sodom would have been punished not for the sins of sodomy but for not welcoming strangers, is entirely false. There is, therefore, no reason to abandon the term 'sodomy,' with which moral theology has always designated this sin.
Furthermore, it is necessary to explain why and in what sense St. Paul calls it 'against nature,' as I have done in this article. That is not the problem. Suppose we want to implement effective pastoral care for homosexuals. In that case, the way is not to move in ambiguity, hiding what should be brought to light, saying and not saying, excusing what cannot be excused, minimizing and leaving open the possibility that something may be allowed, which is not affirmed to be prohibited.
All these games, deceptions, attenuations, simulations, and dissimulations are not honesty, charity, prudence, or mercy. This is not the language of Christ, St. Paul, St. John, the Holy Mother Church, and all the Saints. If Christ is the physician of souls, the good doctor diagnoses his patient's illness, even with all due respect. It makes no sense to be offended because the doctor diagnoses our illness.
One cannot confuse illness with health by saying that the sodomite is simply a 'different' person. This is especially true since certain diseases of the body have no remedy, but there is always a remedy for sin if we are ready to recognize it and take responsibility.
So, the real problem is not to reassure the sinner and let them sin freely with the assurance that 'God is good.' Instead, it is to help them with so much charity and patience to free themselves from sin, accompanying understanding with accountability. Understanding their fragility, and accountability encourages them to make good use of their will, trusting in the assistance of grace—this is the function of blessing—by reminding them of the consequences of disobedience. This is the true method of the Gospel that saves sinners.
It is this clarity of the Gospel in this delicate field of sexual ethics that is extremely lacking today, resulting in a lack of conviction that sodomy and adultery are truly sins. If we then add moral theories such as Rahner's that deny human nature and natural law, we understand the extreme moral confusion from which we suffer today. I have tried to fill these gaps while appreciating the qualities of the document, which, with its pastoral tone, truly smells of the Gospel - as theologian Alberto Maggi has said-, and is highly commendable for presenting the biblical doctrine of blessing.
Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli OP
Fontanellato, December 24, 2023
Source:
https://padrecavalcoli.blogspot.com/p/normal-0-14-false-false-false-it-x-none_25.html
[1] https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/doc_doc_index_it.htm
[2] Gen 4,10;13, 13; 19, 1-11; Es 22,25s; Lev. 18, 22-26; Deut 23, 18-19; 29,22; I Re 14,24; 15,12; 22,47; II Re 23,7; Ger 23,14; Ez 16,48ss; Lam 4,6; Rm 1,24-26; I Tim 1, 9-10; I Cor 6, 9; II Pt 2, 6ss; Gd 7.
[3] I have gathered these teachings in my book "La coppia consacrata," Edizioni VivereIn, Monopoli (BA) 2008.
[4] See my book "Karl Rahner. Il Concilio tradito," Edizioni Fede&Cultura, Verona 2009; also, refer to my article "L’ANTROPOLOGIA DI KARL RAHNER," Sacra Doctrina, 1, 1991, pp.28-55; published in the Proceedings of the IX International Thomistic Congress, vol.III, Antropologia tomista, edited by the Pontifical Academy of Saint Thomas, Vatican Press, 1991, pp.382-400.
[5] Cf S.Tommaso, Sum.Theol., I, q.14.
[6] "Uditori della parola," Edizioni Borla, Roma 1977, p.66. See Fabro's critique of Rahner's thesis in "La svolta antropologica di Karl Rahner," Edizioni Rusconi, Milano 1974.
[7] In "Les principes de la théologie catholique," Téqui, Paris 1982, pp.187-188.
[8] See "Il problema dell’ominizzazione," Morcelliana, Brescia 1969.