Cardinal Approves Blessing of Same-Sex Unions


Dont agree,but still dont want to treat cruel these people and all people


Doesn’t matter if they are “in fidelity to each other” or not. There is no “blessing” for homosexual relationships in a church of Jesus Christ. However, there are plenty of “churches” (now “churches” of Satan) where they can receive such a “blessing” and pretend that there is something “holy” about their homosexual relationship.


Everyone receives a blessing at the end of every Mass.


You are patient indeed. Those who are not Catholic typically have a profound misunderstanding of what the Church is.
And unfortunately, so do many nominal Catholics.


Nothing holly about same sex marriages…but prefer to help instead of judge dont know their life


That’s correct, nothing holy. Therefore, no blessing.


You did read the conditions I stated, right? This is in no way a marriage or a domestic partnership. It’s far more like a religious vow than a marriage (hence condition 3), except that in most cases, it would be far more informal. There are already gay Christians doing this. They live together and do ministry type activities together, but also are chaste to the point of making the virtue a habit. They describe their own relationship much more in monastic rather than in marital terms. And it shouldn’t be done if one person poses as a significant temptation for the other.

The fact that something like this looks likes marriage is already a problem because it assumes that the only time of strong relationship with obligations that are not between family members are, well, marriages. This wasn’t always the case back then. The romanticization of marriage as THE bond of friendship in lay society really does make it difficult for people who can neither marry nor become clergy or religious (because most orders, as far as I know, also prohibit any one with an ounce of homosexuality from joining, or simply because one needs an actual calling to the latter two). In the past though, there were all sorts of publicly recognized relations that were not evil and between people who were not married. From sponsorships to, well, best buddies living together like was the case with John Henry Newman.

Meanwhile, even priests, assuming there isn’t a priest shortage in the area, live together. And a priest without his brotherhood in a parish takes a strong told on him. You don’t think similar things happen to lay people, especially if sacramental marriage is not an option for them?


If such is a necessary criterion, it would be helpful for cardinals and bishops to state such requirement. As it stands, there’s hardly any talk about chastity when dealing with these situations.


Hmm. It seems like a lot of religious groups (sisters, brothers, monks, nuns) often had a rule against “particular” friendships.


(laughing at the thought of someone who thinks i’m patient…lol)

it’s one thing to disagree with Church teaching, but it’s another for someone to keep saying it’s because of “hate”. the refusal to even try to understand why the Church teaches such and such just stops all progress in understanding and discussion.


One doesn’t bless a sinful intention.

This cardinal needs to be disciplined…but clearly, he’s a sending up trial balloons for the pope.

We’re in schism.


I agree with that. Again read my full statement. I don’t think Marx is proposing this, but rather really is thinking about a sort of “gradualness of the law” approach, or just moral laxity, given previous statements of his. So I am in agreement with the majority of the commenters here with regards to the scandalous nature of his comments.


Who has the authority to correct a cardinal or ask for clarifications, were he to err in some matter?


I did read that. It is an unnecessary blessing on a relationship. The relationship is fundamental to the blessing as that is what is being blessed.

But the priests don’t have a particular relationship between them apart from living together.


Marriage is between man and woman!
Marriage is forever and only one!
Sex is only one way !!!


Hasn’t every Protestant church that now conducts same sex “marriages” started along their sulfurous path by first blessing same sex “unions?”


True, which is why the analogy only goes so far. Part if it is that in those contexts, homosexuality might have really been a problem, especially for people who had not worked on dealing with those temptations, and another part is that the unity of the whole order is at play here, so particularity could give ride to factions. The way I see it though, such an arrangement as I am talking about need not only be limited to two, but it would be a lot smaller than a typical order is, and it would be known to the pastor in the parish who can also give good counsel.


Right you are!


Possibly, but when they did so, there was no requirement of chastity. I don’t think one should bless a same sex union in se.


But the priests don’t have a particular relationship between them apart from living together

That doesn’t prevent priests from struggling if they actually live alone though.

I did read that. It is an unnecessary blessing on a relationship. The relationship is fundamental to the blessing as that is what is being blessed.

Do blessings have to be “necessary” in order for it to be good to do them? We bless objects all the time, but we don’t “need” to do that. The blessing can be helpful though, in that it can assist in ensuring chastity and fidelity to the Church, especially since, again, this kind of bond will be outwardly oriented to the service of the Church.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit