The Declaration on the pastoral significance of blessings Fiducia supplicans still represents a stumbling block in the Catholic world. This document, an authentic teaching of which Pope Francis has signed and thus approved, introduces the possibility of blessing Catholics living in so-called irregular situations. Irregular situations among Catholics are not a new phenomenon, just as it is not new for the Church to reach out and reveal the face of the Merciful Father to those Catholics in such situations (primarily referring to those Catholics not living in sacramental marriage but in alternative marital and family unions). Pope John Paul II made a small step in that direction when he lifted excommunication for those Catholics who would remarry (civilly). Indeed, the holy pope welcomed these Catholics, opening the doors to their active participation in the life of the Church, but he did not cross the boundary represented by sacramental and dogmatic teachings. These Catholics in irregular situations still could not live the sacramental fullness of Christian life.
Pope Francis took a significant step in his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, where in a footnote 351, he opens the possibility for Catholics in irregular situations, after pastoral discernment, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist.
What is important to emphasize here, at least for me, concerns the irregular situations in which Catholics may find themselves. Until this Declaration of the Dicastery, discussions exclusively revolved around heterosexual couples (i.e., one woman and one man) when listing specifications of irregular situations. As mentioned earlier, we have Catholics who have civilly married, with their sacramental marriage still valid. Then there are Catholics who are only civilly married, as well as those who live as husband and wife without being either civilly or sacramentally married. All these were possibilities of irregular situations until the Declaration, and after the Declaration the context of irregular situations also includes discussions about same-sex couples. Perhaps this is a novelty that Prefect of the Dicastery, Cardinal Fernandez, is addressing in the introduction of the document? Of course, it is not, but it is important to recognize this fact.
The novelty introduced by the document concerns the pastoral understanding of blessings. As I understand it, there are three types of blessings. The first type is closely related to the liturgy of the Church, specifically the celebration of sacraments. For example, in the sacrament of baptism, there is the blessing of water and parents (and godparents). The Declaration itself addresses this type of blessing. It is clear that in the context of this (liturgical) type of blessing, there is no discussion of blessing couples in irregular situations.
The second type of blessing is ritual. It is not related to the celebration of sacraments but to the ritual blessing of individuals, relationships between individuals, things, or even phenomena. It seems clear that ritual blessings have prescribed forms, designated prayers, and a structure. This type of blessing (sacramental) is certainly “lesser” or “lower” than the liturgical one, and according to the catechism, its purpose is to prepare a person for receiving the main effect mediated by the sacrament (sanctifying grace). Therefore, the “object” of this ritual blessing can be engaged couples preparing for the sacrament of marriage. For this reason, individuals or couples in irregular situations, as orthodoxly expressed by the Declaration, cannot be the “object” of this type of blessing.
And as far as I understood things before the Declaration, there is also a third type of blessing, which can be broadly termed as popular (or pastoral in the context of the Declaration) blessing. This type pertains to all blessings that a Catholic, based on the universal priesthood (established on baptismal grace), can bestow upon oneself, others, things, and phenomena. The crucial difference between these three types of blessings is that the first two are administered by the Church (through ordained ministers – deacons, priests, or bishops), while the third is bestowed in the name of the baptized person who is giving it. In this context, there is nothing scandalous about the fact that many parents have blessed their sons and daughters in irregular situations – whether individually, together with their partners, or in their sinful state. Probably, every father and mother would bless the civil marriage of their child, which made them a grandparent. Likewise, in the context of this type of blessing, there was nothing scandalous when many priests, nuns, and laypeople blessed (individually, as couples, or in groups) participants of the Ultra Europe Festival in Split, all for the purpose and role of evangelization. No one asked who they were, whether they lived a Catholic life, or were in an irregular situation. They could do so because they were not acting in the name of the Church and under the Church’s directive; instead, they were acting based on their evangelistic inspiration. These were spontaneous blessings – exactly the kind that the Declaration presupposes, as clarified multiple times by the Prefect of the Dicastery and describes as pastoral blessings.
What was self-evident to me before the Declaration, at least, is no longer so simple now. When I first read the text of the Declaration, and the same applies now after numerous clarifications from Cardinal Fernandez himself, it was not clear to me whether the novelty outlined in the Declaration, concerning the pastoral understanding of blessings, pertains to this third category of blessings – meaning that now, after the Declaration, due to pastoral discernment, the Church decides to bestow this type of (pastoral, non-liturgical, and non-ritual) blessing upon Catholics in irregular situations, strictly stating that it is not a blessing for their relationship or partnership, which still remains unacceptable to the Church, but rather a blessing for individuals in a relationship deemed unacceptable by the Church (blessing the couple and not their union).
If this is the case, does it mean that there is a fourth category of blessings (in addition to liturgical, ritual, and popular blessings that we share among ourselves based on the universal priesthood)? Is it that now we have a pastoral blessing bestowed by the Church through ordained ministers – priests – specifically for Catholics in irregular situations, without blessing the sin in which they live. In this fourth category, can the Church clearly distinguish whom and what it blesses from whom and what it does not blesses? If so, it should be communicated and explained clearly to confused Catholics like me. Because if not, why then create a document allowing what the Church cannot provide?
As far as I understood before the Declaration, there was no problem with anyone, including a priest (as was the case during evangelization at the Ultra Europe Festival, for example), blessing anything or anyone. It was clear to everyone that this was not done by the Church or in the name of the Church. Here’s an example: when the parish priest comes to my family for lunch, we usually ask him to say the blessing for the food. He almost always refuses to do so and insists that I, as the head of the family, bless the food at our table. Occasionally, he relents and blesses the food as well. But that blessing, at least as far as I understand blessings, is not a blessing by a priest in the name of the Church (nor has the Church blessed the food we are about to eat at that moment). That blessing is pronounced by a Catholic (who is also a priest) based on baptismal, universal priesthood. When the same person, my parish priest, blesses the food during the Easter Vigil, then the Church itself has blessed that food through its ordained minister who pronounced the ritual blessing in the name of the Church. This is based on a clear theological distinction between the universal and ministerial priesthood.
The main question about this distinction is: does the priest always act ministerially, or does he sometimes act based on the universal (baptismal) priesthood? This is not an insignificant question but a serious theological one that requires a clear theological answer. My answer would be that the priest does not always act based on the ministerial priesthood (although he is fundamentally marked by the sacrament of holy orders with a sacramental seal) – the example with the blessing of food would be an example of non-ministerial action of the priest, and blessings during evangelization of the Ultra Europe Festival is second – but he can act (bless) sometimes based on the universal priesthood (and then he doesn’t act/blesses in the name of the Church).
If I have conveyed this idea of three categories/types of blessings accurately, it becomes clear where the problem lies with this Declaration. If it is not about a fourth category/type of blessing but rather the third, into which the Church and its ordained ministers are now being “pushed” to bestow this type of blessing in the name of the Church, then this negates, at least as I perceive the situation, the authority of Catholics based on baptismal grace and the universal priesthood. And if that’s the case (if the pastoral blessing is not a fourth category/type of blessing), then we have a double problem. However, if the pastoral blessing is the fourth category of blessings, then the Dicastery and theology must further explain and clearly define the nature, purpose, and goal of this category of blessing. I believe that the key role in this clarification would be played by the distinction between the universal (baptismal) and ministerial priesthood. If this is indeed the case, then this category is entirely unnecessary because everything can be achieved through the third category – except that, in the third category, it is the person (Catholic) who bestows the blessing, not the Church.
To conclude my thoughts more simply and clearly: According to my understanding, there are three categories of blessings:
- Liturgical Blessing
- Ritual Blessing
- Popular (Pastoral) Blessing
The first two categories are associated with ordained ministers of the Church (deacon, priest, and bishop), meaning that the Church itself acts/blesses, and what/who is blessed is blessed in the name of the Church. The blessings themselves are clearly structured. The third category is associated with every Catholic based on the universal (baptismal) priesthood because we are called to bless each other and be a blessing to one another. The Church, so to speak, has nothing to do with this third category of blessing. These are spontaneous blessings when we wish well to one another or to things.
This was the situation before the Declaration, and now the situation is unclear. In my view, there are two options:
- The Declaration, under the term “pastoral blessing,” refers to my third category of blessings.
- The Declaration introduces a fourth category of blessings.
The difference between these two options is as follows:
If the Declaration intends to incorporate the Church and priests (ministerial priesthood) into the third category, it results in a double problem: the first issue is that the Church is consenting to bless a sin (I have not seen a convincing argument that it is possible to separate the couple from what constitutes that couple because, along with two individuals, the couplehood comprises the nature of their relationship); and the second issue is that it diminishes the importance of the universal (baptismal) priesthood of the laity.
If the Declaration introduces a fourth category of blessings, then things are much more favorable (because the Church has the authority to do so), but they are not sufficiently clear.
Personally, I hope it is the second option, and I believe that time will bring clarity and precision, along with theological reasoning and justification.
Adekvatna Teologija | Bruno Petrušić 