Blessing the Sin or the Sinner?

Blessing sin or the sinner?

The current state of affairs perhaps has reached the point of Francis fatigue.  The faithful are simply exhausted with the constant shifting of sand beneath our feet and the rather difficult position the lay have in evangelizing the unchanging truths of the Faith, when it appears that that was true, but isn’t anymore.  If we reflect on this newest document, we can see two camps taking opposite sides and hurling “heretic” and “pharisee” at each other.  But is this the only position in this most recent “Francis ambiguity?”

I was asked to consider this from my useless friend (as he calls himself) and in doing so, he asked my theological opinion and presented the following scenarios:

1) Two man engaged in sodomite relationship approach the priest and ask for a     blessing, 

2) A man and two women in a thruple approach the priest and ask for a blessing,

3) A woman and two men in a thruple approach the priest and ask for a blessing,

4) A married man with his mistress approach the priest and ask for a blessing,

5) A married woman presents with a man, not her husband, although she is married to    another man, approach the priest and ask for a blessing,

6) A man, three women and a goat approach the priest and ask for a blessing,

7) Etc of every imaginable combination of men, women, animals, and any possible    derivation of same (what about androids)? And approach and ask for a blessing?

Ok, so you get my point and the list can literally become an endless parade of disordered relationships in which man can engage are now up for “blessings.”  In Francis speak, everyone can be blest by God. True, for even Scripture says, “For he makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.” (Mt. 5:45)  But Francis hasn’t made the distinction of who is good and who is evil, and in fact has said, “Who am I to judge?”  But are there objectively evil acts, that once one engages in them and the person then, and with the cheering on of the demons, identify themselves with their sin, they become evil themselves.  Can we agree that this might be a workable definition?  Didn’t Jesus say, “Those who are well are in no need of a physician, but those who are sick.”  This latest document, Fiducia Supplicans, has affirmed that marriage can only be, as that is the ontological reality and hence definition of marriage, between one man and one woman.  So there appears to be a dilemma, not unlike the one Jesus faced when the Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. (Ever notice that the man wasn’t brought before Jesus?)  Jesus begins tracing his finger on the ground, perhaps writing out all the sins of the Pharisees and others that they had committed and most assuredly some would have been guilty of the same sin.  Jesus’ response is not stone her or not stone her, as each choice would have left him open for accusations from the Sanhedrin that He doesn’t follow the law, the book of technicalities, or open to arrest from the Romans in putting someone to death which the Jews had no authority to do.  It seems to be a bit of a pickle, not unlike the one Francis has placed before us.  Is there another answer besides, “We will not bless disordered sexual relationships,” or “we will bless disordered sexual relationships.”  If we don’t we are denying the rain to fall on the evil and fail to bring healing to the sick.  But what if our answer is that of Jesus to the woman caught in adultery?  “Is there anyone here to condemn you?” she responded, “No sir, no one.”  Jesus then gives us the answer to extricate ourselves from being obedient to the pope, (Mt. 23:2-3) or defying him, which may put us out of the boat.  “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.”  Here I would offer the answer for the priests and bishops that recognize that the actual blessing of people engaged in objectively sinful relationships, is absolutely scandalous to the faithful, and for the bishops and priests that are apoplectically giddy about undermining the Church’s “harsh teaching about human sexuality” the answer that Christ Himself gives us.  This then is an opportunity for a teaching moment. The priest can bless each of the individuals, and animal should such be the case, with these words, “May the God the universe, who loved man beyond our comprehension such that while we were his enemy, He sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins so that we could be in right relationship with Him and gain eternal salvation.  I bless (insert name of person) that he may have the grace of the Holy Spirit to end this sinful relationship and turn to God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ for healing to go and sin no more.”

In this way, the priests are obeying the pope, and being true to the Truth of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the natural moral law as God gave to us through Moses some 3,500 years ago which cannot change.   After all Jesus loved us enough to meet us in our sin, but not leave us there.  Pope Francis has already noted that the disordered union of persons, (that is any sexual relationship that is outside the bond of Holy Matrimony as the Church has always defined it per divine revelation), cannot be affirmed by the Church and the blessing is to be conferred on the persons, not the union.  This would bring no scandal to the faithful, it would call the wicked to repentance and the Church as the field hospital, would be imparting medicine to the sick.  Win, win all the way around.

Robert L. Judge, M.A.