The Catholic Church has always had blessings for people and items.  Blessings for people are usually for individuals, but occasionally a priest may bless groups living in a vocation designed by God (like a family.) Blessings for items can be anything from a vehicle to a crucifix.

But there is a new heretical document from Cdl. Fernandez that reads:  “III. Blessings of Couples in Irregular Situations and of Couples of the Same Sex. 31. Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex, the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage.” (emphasis mine.)

Catholic News Agency has an article titled “U.S diocese respond to Vatican declaration on same-sex couple blessings.”  The article interviews Bishop Andrew Cozzens of Diocese of Crookston, Minnesota and Cardinal Seán O’Malley of the Archdiocese of Boston and Cardinal Blase Cupich of the Archdiocese of Chicago.

In the article, Bishop Cozzens thankfully referred to marriage as existing between a man and a woman.  He also mentioned “repentance and conversion” for those who wish to follow Christ in discipleship.  This is also good. But then he said, “Although it is impossible for us to bless a same-sex union, since any sexual union outside of the marriage of one man and one woman is contrary to the Gospel, we may bless individuals who are not yet living in full accord with the Gospel, even those in a same-sex union.”

This doesn’t make any sense.  If the only thing Bishop Cozzens meant to say to CNA was “We priests and bishops can obviously bless anybody,” then he should have said, “We priests and bishops can obviously bless anybody,” and left it at that. But he didn’t.

So, we must ask: Why would Bp. Cozzens write about the blessing of someone who struggles with same-sex attraction as a blessing for someone “in a same-sex union” if that person were actually struggling for chastity?  In fact, why would it matter if the recipient of the blessing were not aiming for chastity if we priests can actually bless any person or any object? I assume this is because the bishop wants to defend the heretical paragraph 31 above from the Vatican website calling for “the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex” while still not going full-bore heresy like Cdl. Fernandez.

He must have forgotten that the traditional Magisterium of the Catholic Church states that making any “defense of the ill done” makes one an accessory to another’s sin, including heresy.  And yes, paragraph 31 is a heresy, encouraging “blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex.”

Would any US bishop approve of a child-trafficker and an abused-child being blessed together or separately by a priest as long as there were some amorphous pledge of future “repentance and conversion” on the part of the sex-trafficker?  Of course not. Especially if the trafficker identified “slavery” as his impetus for the request of the blessing. No, that person obviously needs to go to the confessional, not receive “a blessing.”

I recently heard a woman my age speak on the FOCUS YouTube about how she has struggled her whole life with same-sex attraction.  But she said she doesn’t like to be pigeonholed into that sin when there is so much more to the story of her falls and redemption than just that one thing.  In fact, she said something very beautiful and powerful on that topic of same-sex attraction:  “Satan calls you by your sin.  Jesus calls you by your name.”  Translated into today’s topic:  Why do we have to talk about blessing chaste Catholics “with same-sex attraction” if we really believe they are first sons and daughters of God?

Why would so many American priests and bishops play into the Vatican’s insistence that we call same-sex attracted people by their sin as we priests approach them to bless them?  Why approach any Catholic based on their struggles instead of their baptismal identity?  I suspect it is because many don’t believe in sin or redemption by the blood of Jesus.

But a few do, and even they seem woefully ignorant of the fact that a change in the practice of the blessings of the Catholic Church will immediately effect a change in the lifestyle of the baptized.  In other words, “gay civil-union” blessings will most certainly lead to “gay marriages” in mainstream liberal parishes.  This happens practically, whether or not certain hand-wringing bishops want to see this happen doctrinally, or not.

All in all, I think we see that the Vatican-document linked at the top of this article is [barely] more honest than the so-called “conservative” bishops who will play word-games in their dioceses simply to avoid falling into the denotation of heresy or fall short of doing damage-control for the Vatican.  But we will all answer for our denotation and connotation. This is something the first century Pharisees probably didn’t realize until their condemnation.

Some bishops of the United States would rather defend the blessing of mortal sin than admit the obvious, namely, that heresy is currently being produced in such documents.  In fact, many US bishops would apparently either remain silent or bless one of the four major sins that cries out to heaven for vengeance than simply indicate the commandeering that happened in the Vatican in 2013. This evil has led to the destruction of souls—vulnerable souls struggling with certain disorders who were redeemed by the blood of Christ, yet may be unable to attain it as they are deceived by imposters who pose as shepherds.

Someone in the hierarchy needs to finally stop this madness by beginning an honest appraisal of the canonical crimes that happened in Rome during 2012 and 2013.  Nothing will get fixed until that happens.  And that admission of duress in Pope Benedict XVI’s putative-resignation will also provide the lynchpin to all these heretical documents that no one needs to defend.