CDF responds about blessing same-sex unions: “[God] does not and cannot bless sin”

In a clear and long-overdue slap-down of the German bishops and their dreadful “synod” process, today the CDF released the text of a response to a dubium (that doesn’t happen as often as we would like, does it…) about “blessing unions of persons of the same sex”. HERE  And article about the response HERE

Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?


Then there is an explanation. What does it come down to?

“[God] does not and cannot bless sin”.

There are the usual explanations about pastoral care, this isn’t discrimination, etc. It also stresses that because of the relationship of blessings with sacraments, there is no way that a blessing can be conferred on same-sex couples.

Furthermore, since blessings on persons are in relationship with the sacraments, the blessing of homosexual unions cannot be considered licit. This is because they would constitute a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing[7] invoked on the man and woman united in the sacrament of Matrimony, while in fact “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family”[8].

None of this means that priests can’t bless people with homosexual inclinations. The Church cannot bless the relationships of couples with these inclinations. That would be tantamount to participation in the sin of another.

You can be guilty of the sin committed by another

  1. By counsel (to give advice, one’s opinion or instructions.)
  2. By command (to demand, to order, such as in the military.)
  3. By consent (to give permission, to approve, to agree to.)
  4. By provocation (to dare.)
  5. By praise or flattery (to cheer, to applaud, to commend.)
  6. By concealment (to hide the action, to cover-up.)
  7. By partaking (to take part, to participate.)
  8. By silence (by playing dumb, by remaining quiet.)
  9. By defense of the ill done (to justify, to argue in favour.)

The blessing of same-sex unions would fall under a couple of these categories, consent and probably praise and maybe partaking.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. ex seaxe says:

    In the early middle ages there are I am told examples of two persons of the same sex receiving a church blessing, BUT it is fairly clear that these were what are called ‘blood brothers’, which is of course a totally different matter than the depravity now meant by ‘same sex union’.

  2. Benedictus says:

    There’s a part of the response to the dubium which states “The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, . . .”

    Would the Vatican also say that if my mistress and her kids were being fed, and clothed? Or what about if I had slaves (and they were fed and clothed)? Would the Vatican say that?

    I’m done with this pc correctness. Why can’t they answer, without waffling?

  3. KSC says:

    Definitely good news…I’ll be looking for fr. martin’s and amerika magazine’s response.

  4. teomatteo says:

    Benedictus… because they don’t want to ‘appear’ harsh and uncaring. When in fact our Lord was very caring- as caring as is possible. Always.

  5. Mel says:

    I was so happy to hear this on Catholic radio this morning, l nearly cried. I am praying for our Pope, and he is our Pope.

  6. iamlucky13 says:

    Benedictus – if I remember right, Amoris Laetitia did actually bring up the first consideration. For the latter, Jesus called for fair treatment of slaves, not as a justification of slavery, but for their protection at a time when society was nowhere close to being ready to eliminate slavery.

    The key point is that a benefit associated with a sin does not justify a sin. Yet these benefits will be used by others to try to justify the sin, so it is necessary to acknowledge those factors to help establish where the line exists. Eg – those who have no family still need healthy relationships with others, and may need to share resources for mutual support. Those considerations justify strong friendships, housemates, etc. They do not justify sexual relationships.

  7. samwise says:

    BBC radio reported: CDF says this, but Pope Francis supports “civil unions & ‘some’ priests still bless same sex unions”

  8. samwise says:

    Glad I donated to this year!

  9. Longinus says:

    My concern is that nothing was stated by the CDC concerning what would happen if a priest or bishop ignored this statement and went ahead with blessing a same sex couple. Doesn’t that make this a ruling without teeth? Is it leaving the enforcement of this to bishops who may give a slap on the wrist (or less than that!) to a priest who performs such a blessing?

  10. Chrisc says:

    Bingo. The cdf states the rule so to keep everyone playing along like there isn’t anything wrong here, then application moves to the local or national level because ‘synodality’, then the local church decides not to endorse something contrary but merely accompany people. So the ‘church’ hasn’t changed at all, all the while, what will be happening in the narthex will have. If you find this incongruous, well, you are rigid like the pharisees.

  11. JustaSinner says:

    All those sins by association…I’m heading for the hills to become a hermit!

  12. monstrance says:

    It almost shocking to have a statement this clear and orthodox be released from this Pope’s Vatican.
    Maybe we can thank the German Synodal Way.

  13. ChrisP says:

    KSC: Fr Martin tweeted thus.

    I feel for the folk who put all their hope in him as he leads them down a twisted, descending path.

  14. Pingback: TVESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  15. Pingback: CDF responds about blessing same-sex unions: “[God] does not and cannot bless sin” | Catholicism Pure & Simple

  16. acardnal says:

    Some of us have been Blocked by Fr. James Martin, SJ, and therefore cannot read his Tweets. I do wonder what he will do now.

  17. Semper Gumby says:

    JustaSinner: An excellent idea. But before you de-urbanize let us have the grid coordinates to your Country Bunker so we can airdrop Holy Water and Birra Nursia fortnightly.

    acardnal: He was last spotted in Home Depot purchasing lumber and power tools to build a High place to Theodore McCarrick.

    Here is how Horan of Babylon is taking the news, from March 15:

    “Breaking News: Gravity is considered “intrinsically disordered” because it does not appear anywhere in the thirteenth-century appropriation of Aristotle’s treatise on physics and therefore goes against God’s will. Anyone participating in gravity is committing a grave sin.”

    Speak! O glorious Horan of Babylon! Speak…

  18. Semper re: The Horan on gravity.

    Sheesh. It is hard to imagine a dumber thing to write than that.

  19. Semper Gumby says:

    Fr. Z: “2+2=5”

  20. GregB says:

    At the time my take was: 2 Cardinals + 2 Cardinals = 5 Dubia

Comments are closed.