This comes via a comment under another post HERE
QUAERITUR:
Serious question – if a priest were to bless an unholy act, would he be bringing a curse upon himself?
God the Father is very clear in the Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena about this particular sin and the standard to which He holds His priests.
I needed some time to think about this and to consult.
First, the reference to the Dialogue, above. Reminder: I wrote about that HERE. In a nutshell, St. Catherine, Doctor and Patroness of Europe and of Italy, in her her Dialogues (ch 124), writes that the Enemy, demons, incite people to unnatural sins (homosexual acts) but that they don’t stick around to see them happen, because those acts are too repulsive even for them. As Christ – concerning priests especially – told St. Catherine:
Not that the evil displeases [demons] because they like anything good, but because their nature was originally angelic, and their angelic nature causes them to loathe the sight of the actual commission of this enormous sin. They truly enough hurl the arrow poisoned with the venom of concupiscence, but when their victim proceeds to the actual commission of the sin, they depart for the reason and in the manner that I have said.
Such acts can result in extraordinary demonic activity like oppression, obsession, possession. Demons are legalistic. They claim a right to “attach”, as it were. Their claim has to be broken. Certain sins – including unnatural sex acts – give demons a claim on a person or place. If a priest then blesses a homoerotic couple… what does that imply for the claim of the demons? Could the demons make a claim on the priest for what he did?
Extraordinary demonic activity such as oppression, obsession, possession is morally neutral. As a matter of fact, not that a person should ever undertake such a route, God forbid!, possession can be the occasion for a person to attain to great holiness.
That said – and this has to be perfectly clear – the commission of even a venial sin is morally worse than being possessed. Sin is worse than ordinary or extraordinary demonic activity.
Priests (seminarians, religious) are high value targets for the Enemy, who has limited time just as we do. There is a much higher incidence of extraordinary demonic activity for priests (etc.) who commit sins such as viewing porn as there would be among, say, high school students or your average Joe. Without denigrating them in the least, the latter are a dime a dozen. Priests are high value targets. Hence, anything that might incite extraordinary demonic activity is going to have a far higher risk for priests than most lay people.
The graver the sin, the higher the risk.
A blessing invokes the names of the Most Holy Trinity, naming the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Their very names are sacred. Invoking them to bestow blessings, graces, is decidedly non-trivial.
Think about it: Invoke the Trinity in the blessing of those whom you know intend to be engaging in such acts? It is sacrilege.
An exorcist I spoke to before posting this called it “horrific”.
The only way in which it would not be sacrilege is if the couple are firmly resolved to cease their homoerotic and unnatural behavior and therefore they are asking for a blessing, to help them in their conversion, not to affirm them in their status quo ante. In that case, when this is manifest, I think a priest should bless them – in view of their determination not to sin and to change their lives.
Analogy. At the beginning of a sacramental confession, you have sorrow for sins and a firm purpose of amendment. In our common English language form of going to confession what do you say? “Bless me, Father…”. You are sorry for your sins and you want to amend your life. You want to make as good a confession as you can, so you ask for the priest’s blessing. In hearing confessions I silently add a prayer that our holy angel guardians will protect us, keep the penitent from attacks and distractions.
Blessings are non-trivial.
For a priest to bless a homoerotic couple, who show no sign of repentance, no indication of conversion or cessation, but rather gives every indication of continuing in their ways, would be, in light of the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity, a sin of sacrilege.
Since priests are high value targets for the Enemy, it follows that a priest who blesses such an unrepentant couple are in a greater risk extraordinary demonic activity as a result of his own sin and complicity.
We are living in an age when the sense of the sacred has been terribly eroded. Liturgical worship worthy of the name “sacred” is harder and harder to find. Music for worship is mostly anything but sacred. The Most Sacred Body and Blood of Christ and the sacred vessels consecrated to contain them are handled by anyone and everyone without the consecration of their hands for the task. Communion is regularly received sacrilegiously by those who have not confessed their sins for who knows how long. Buildings and vestments. The whole of it. And there’s teaching in schools, formation in catechism, preaching from pulpits. We’ve heard more about climate and immigration and covid than we do about transcendence, sacrality and holiness.
The names of the Trinity are sacred. To bless is a very brief liturgical act. Think about how most prayers of blessings have always begun (and still do begin even in the post-Conciliar so-called Book of Blessings). They start with the priest saying “Adiutorium nostrum in nomine Domini... Our help is in the name of the Lord”, to which those present respond “Qui fecit caelum et terram… Who made Heaven and Earth.” They go on with “Dominus vobiscum“, etc., and end with affirmation in “Amen” as a response. If that isn’t liturgical… what is it?
Liturgies are for worship of God, the fulfillment of the virtue of religion, not the implication of that which is most sacred in the ongoing determination to commit terrible sins.
Hence, to tell most people today that the blessing – whatever that is – of a same-sex couple – ’cause love is love, okay? – is a sacrilege is going to be sort of like shouting down a well.
What does sacrilege mean for those who have no idea of what sacrality is?
I’m afraid that, by now, many priests and perhaps even bishops, might have succumbed to the times in this regard.
Objections may come. “But God is merciful!” Okay, but God is just and God is not to be mocked.” “You are mean!” No, I want people to go to Heaven and that might require painful effort. “The Pope says you have to do it.” No, I really don’t. “The Church’s teaching has changed.” No, it really hasn’t. “You hate gays!” Not in the least. I am unwilling to lie to them.
Finally, something more to contemplate from the Jewish, rabbinic tradition.
At the top, I mentioned the Dialogues of St. Catherine of Siena. In the passage I cited, Christ says:
[The sin of sodomy] does indeed displease Me so much and I hold it in such abomination that for it alone I buried five cities by a Divine judgment, My Divine justice being no longer able to endure it.
Turning to the rabbinic tradition, Rabbi Huna (Talmudist +297) said that
“The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents or contracts for the union of a man to a male or to an animal.” – Genesis Rabbah 26:5 (Genesis 6:2) (cf. also Leviticus Rabbah 23:9 (Leviticus 18:2-4)
Get that? God did not bring on the Flood because men were committing unnatural acts. He brought the Flood because they codified same-sex unions. They gave them approval. As it were, they blessed them.
Hmmm… Save The Liturgy… Save The World.
Fathers! I am praying for you. Do not commit sacrilege.
I pray that God will protect you from spiritual and temporal harm.
I pray for you to invoke your Confirmed character so as to be strong when you are tried.
I pray that Mary, Queen of Priests, will place her mantle over you.
I pray that St. Joseph, Terror of Demons, will guard you.
I pray that Sts. Michael and Gabriel and Raphael will fight beside you, inspire you, and heal you.
Loading ...
We need be very cognizant of what happens next. The tornado of law suits which are about to befall faithful priests whose consciences will forbid them from providing a bogus blessing to SSA couples. Who will be first? What diocese will hang their clergy out to dry? Which religious order and congregation? Which bishop will be first to knife his priests in the back?
Recall well the injustice leveled upon bakers for not providing a wedding cake? Does anyone think for a moment that the LGBTQXYZ legal counsel will turn a blind eye to Catholicism? While they ignored other ostensibly “faith” groups from abuse accusations they butchered Roman Catholicism. We are the juicy meal for atheists.
Recall as well those Catholics who individually refused to be inoculated for the Chinese bioweapon. How many heard “Your pope says its ok, pull up your sleeve.” I don’t recall any bishop coming to their rescue. Such courageous individuals lost their livelihood. No bishop spoke up. Not one.
I wonder if we will get to the end of this year before this hits the fan. Those who engineered this delight in it. They have provided the sure way to beat down faithful priests. They revel in it.
The whole thing is an exercise in superstition and magic. At best, it treats God, and His grace, as things that are at the beck and call of the priest based on the whim of those desiring “to be approved.” Let’s be honest, these sodomites seeking a blessing are not looking to be blessed but to be recognized and approved by men and by God (if they should believe in Him).
I don’t have time for any hair-splitting on this issue. This blessing stuff is just part of the framework of which the end-goal is the normalization of sodomy within the clergy. It is the exact same pattern that unfolded within the protestant denominations.
Fr, thank you for all this information. Very troubling events. From my interpretation of all of this, it basically amounts to the pope has not only allowed but encouraged priests to commit sacrilege? If so, how does that line up with the infallibility of Rome? Forgive me if this is an ignorant question, I’m just trying my best to understand all of this.
There is a duty to avoid the near occasion of sin. If one is living in a perverse and immoral circumstance one has a moral obligation to separate. Get your blessing individually once you have parted. Show first the fruits of your repentance.
Thank you, Father Z, for yet another post of clarity with charity. I just want step back and take a moment to say “Thank you!” as I feel especially grateful at Christmas time. You have been a source of light and truth amidst all the insanity in the world and the Church over the past 20 years (back to the COL days, then the blog), and have always brought your A game, especially with the really tough and controversial topics. You’ve been a beacon of light that has helped me raise 3 boys (two who are now home from college) in the faith during a very challenging time and your post above is yet another example. You’ve never shied away from controversy and I know it hasn’t been easy and it’s had to have taken a toll on you, but you’ve consistently lived your vocation regardless.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I am in your debt.
Merry Christmas!
On Monday, December 18, 2023, the Pope’s office of Doctrinal issues, produced a document on Blessings that is causing confusion. I have been asked, did the Pope allow the blessings of gay/men with same-sex attraction into unions with other like men/women? First, the Pope knows what he is doing!!!! He is a Jesuit. Jesuits have had a long standing playbook from the 1960’s after Vatican II, to push liberal ideologies through the Church. They wanted Vatican III eights years after Vatican II because Vatican II didn’t go far enough. Anyhow, the Jesuits plotted and plotted over the years. And through the St. Galen Mafia, they got Francis elected Pope. He said from his first days, he wants to create chaos. For ten years now, he has been creating chaos. Slowly maneuvering assignments and firing of others, the Pope has put his people in place. The last of whom is this archbishop from Argentine, Fernández who wrote a book as a priest on kissing, “Heal Me With Your Mouth.” He is now a Cardinal and head of the office of the Faith–a doctrinal office of the Pope. As so, he put out on Monday, with the Pope’s approval, a document on Blessings. 95% of the document is elemental, boiler plate teaching on blessings in general. This part is good, but please realize the agenda–this is all a lot of word salad in order to get to what he wants which is to normalize homosexuality and same-sex unions. So, Cardinal Fernandez segues to blessing 1. Heterosexual couples in irregular marriages, (those who are divorced and remarriage outside of the Church) and 2. Same-sex attracted people who have various types of “unions” civic or personal. In one breath, Fernandez talks about how the Church upholds Marriage as being between a man and woman but then he bends over backwards to say that it is okay to bless a PERSON, Not unions, but a person who may be in a “union” to ask God to help them. So a very orthodox reading is that priests may bless a PERSON who may be sincere in his or her struggle with the human condition under the burden of Original Sin (something ALL of us have to deal with) but not PERSONS/Couples who are in irregular marriages or homosexual “unions”. So priests in no way must have any trappings of blessing a union that looks in any way like a marriage. But, and this is key, Pope Francis wants the chaos! Case in point, a long, long, long advocate for normalizing the gay lifestyle is Fr. James Martin. Fr. Martin is a Vatican representative in the office of Vatican Office of Communications. He is a Jesuit and has had a number of personal public meetings with the Pope at a moment’s notice if anything anti-gay has come out. Fr. Martin shows up in Rome, having a photo-op with the Pope, and getting personal letters from the Pope on his ministry that Fr. Martin then shares on his social sites. So, Fr. Martin declared on Monday that he would bless all his gay friends who are in these unions and on Tuesday, Dec. 19th, has already “blessed” gay couples. So, to concluded: As a pastor, as a Pope, to teach doctrinally on “blessings” while at the same time consciously withholding the Church’s moral teachings of the Natural Law/Canon Law/Scripture and the Divine Eternal Law is duplicitous, iniquitous, and deviously calculated to caused confusion so as to push the Overton Window to normalized a lifestyle that is forbidden by scripture (see Romans Chapter 1, please read this), and will led them into a lifestyle of sexually transmitted diseases, and a very high rate of suicide. Accepting same-sex unions means accepting sodomy; these “unions” are unnatural because they will NEVER, produce a baby. No amount of anal sodomy will be fruitful–hence, natural. But don’t think the Pope doesn’t know this for he has been firing tenured Professors at the Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, and putting in apparatchiks who will try to nullify both the Natural Law, and God’s Holy Word, especially as found in Romans Chapter 1. That is why I beg you to read that chapter now and I beg you to pray! Pray for the Pope! Pray for the Church! Pray for Priests who will be forced to go against their consciences and their pastoral training by the bishops or be canceled. And finally pray for those who find themselves struggling with same-sex attractions that they may not be led into a false hope that God Blesses sodomy. Now, heterosexual couples to need to repent, if they too have violated the Natural Law by various forms of contraception from withdrawal, to chemical contraception which causes early abortions, to outright abortions, and finally, elective sterilizations (vasectomies or tubal ligations).
@Benedict Joseph: “…But pray that your flight be not in the winter or on the sabbath. For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be. And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened…” Matthew 24: 20-22
[Keeping in mind that the Lord spoke that part mainly about the upcoming destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem by the Romans.]
This DDF Declaration is truly shocking. I can’t believe we have arrived at this moment. While the mainstream media reporting here that the Church will now bless sane-sex unions (as if a marriage) is not true, conversely, the claim by some in the Church that nothing is new or alarming about this Declaration is also not true. The Declaration itself claims it is proposing an “innovation”, albeit a non-liturgical one. And that innovation is that couples in irregular unions could be blessed precisely as a couple, not as individuals. In other words, the irregular relationship/union is being blessed. I cannot and will not do this.
Putting the Declaration’s innovation in the context of something more authoritative, that of the authority of Divine Revelation in Scripture:
Let’s consider Genesis 19 and Sodom and Gomorrah. According to the Declaration, it is imaginable that two men in the city of Sodom in a same-sex relationship could have asked God for some type of blessing and He would happily bless their relationship in some way that did not confuse His prior revelation in Genesis about marriage. And His blessing would not legitimize their relationship.
Yet, Lot’s wife, for the mere disobedience of looking back while fleeing Sodom, was justly killed and turned into a pillar of salt.
Lot’s wife demands a redo. The Declaration’s claims are ludicrous on their face. Biblical knowledge demonstrates this.
@Benedict Joseph
There will be no lawsuits as there is no case to be had, no legal redress possible, and it would be a violation of the First Amendment anyway. This is the same game plan as what occurred in Protestant-land decades ago.
What this gets used as is a litmus test for figuring out which priests (or would-be seminarians) are “team players” and who gets sent to Siberia.
A priest when dressed as a priest may sometimes be approached by an unknown stranger and asked for a blessing. He does not enquire about the state of life of his supplicant, but would surely offer a brief extempore prayer such as ‘May God bless you and bring you to know His will for you.’ What is worrying is to use such a pastoral act as a hook upon which to hang a theological interpretation which does no justice either to pastoral practice or Catholic moral theology.
I read and I comprehend the document produced by Tucho (he reminds me actually of the character of the same name from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly). Based on my reading, I can confidently say “I will not comply” as I would then be complicit in the sins that cry to heaven. I will not bless any couple in an irregular situation or homosexual one. Maybe I can be the test case – and if it so, may the Lord let it happen on the Feast of St. Stephen, the Martyr, or one of the other deacons who are canonized.
I stand ready to be a witness to the Faith of the Fathers.
I don’t think I’m being too over-the-top when I state, plainly, that my heart breaks for priests, as a corporate body, most of whom are holy men well aware of their position, ontological difference, and looming judgement (as must we all) who have essentially been stabbed in the back by this disgraceful change in stance from Rome.
It matters not what the finely (well, probably not fine, when compared to issued documents in the past) parsed and nuanced words mean from the pen of whatever Dicastry issued them…it’s the public perception, fanned by the media, which will determine what the agreed meaning is. And the nuances of blessing a person, not an abjectly evil situation (are we not ALL in need of blessings? I ask every priest I meet for his blessing. Few have refused me…) are lost in the planned noise to drown out and shape the discussion.
We have to remember that the progressive side thinks in strategic terms of the long game…over-the-top change then backing off and seemingly accepting a lesser position as long as it moves the needle. Our side thinks in terms of tactical “well they didn’t get “X”, so we won”…ignoring the fact that the step towards “X” goal is still in play…perhaps not next year…not next decade…but certainly some point in the future.
I believe what we are seeing is the logical development, hidden for many years after ’65 by the steadfast, if feckless reign of +Paul, the incredibly theologically rich period of +John-Paul I and II, and gentle +Benedict, of what was the end game for the progressive wing all the way back then. Remember…if you want to see what a society will become in 50 years, look to the actions and attitudes of the younger generation today…what we’re seeing is the manifestation of the zeitgeist of the young men in ’69 who are, in their senior years, in charge today.
Benedict Joseph, you mentioned the shots and being told the pope approves them so roll up your sleeve, which is what many Christians believe lost them the argument on refusing a vax and keeping their job. Their were well known legal advocacy groups at that time helping individuals understand their rights, and as I learned, religious rights and freedom does not depend on whatever is emitted by our pope or the church. Our religious freedom and rights depend on our personal understanding of things. We are not obliged to contradict our personal religious feelings, so we are not obliged to square our opinion on something like the shots, to anyone else. Many people were asked for signed letters by clergy, to document their “sincere religious” participation, but this was not legal nor valid, as I understood it. No one else can verify or deny, your own, personal beliefs, and that is actually enough, under the law. The law has been pretzeled, in many instances, and if people do not know their actual rights, they are vulnerable. Contacting groups like the St. Thomas More Society, and similar groups, can be very helpful.
As the dust settles on the latest attack from within, it just becomes obvious priests and bishops are now going to have to choose, and be seen. Anyone who says it changes nothing is denying the obvious so as to try to escape the radar. They most likely can’t. We all know what is going to happen from there.
Well, not too much to worry about in my NO parish near DC. Our otherwise good priests—not a peep about FS. Alas.
Cardinal Ladaria set out very clearly why blessings cannot be given to a ss couple in the CDF’s 2021 explanation of its response to the dubium on that question. Are people reading it and taking it into account? The new declaration has not refuted its argument. https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2021/03/15/210315b.html#
I’m not a priest, so can’t claim to be a High Value Target.
But, I resolved to go to Confession yesterday at our Cathedral. Well, there was a storm in the morning, where the trees above dropped a branch onto the car in the morning. Then, in the local superstore car park a driver almost ran me over at speed (she wasn’t looking or signalling properly) as I was walking out. There were stupid drivers on the road on the way to the Cathedral.
The devil is indeed active – I felt as if he was trying to keep me from the confessional. He has scored some sort of victory in the Church this week. Our Lady has already crushed his head, however. Take heart?
I don’t know about you guys but I could really use a Cardinal Ottaviani right now. Any spare ones around?
Pingback: SATVRDAY AFTERNOON EDITION • BigPulpit.com