“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mk2,27). Jesus made this strong statement, which could also be rendered as “the law is for man not man for the law” in response to the Pharisees who had blamed his disciples for “doing something on the Sabbath that is forbidden” (v. 24).
Matthew’s gospel specifies: They were picking ears of corn and eating them because they were hungry (Mt 12,1). Jesus reminded the Pharisees that this was not new, the high priest Abiathar permitted David’s hungry companions to eat the consecrated bread which only the priests were allowed to eat (I Sam 21,5).
In this episode, we witness a conflict between two types of values. The Pharisees cherish objective values: the law and its demands. Jesus chooses subjective values: the needs of the person. While the former emphasise justice and the truth, the latter emphasise mercy and the good.
The psychoanalyst Carl Gustav Jung retains that, while we appreciate both values, each of us has a preference which is ingrained in our own psychological make-up. Emphasising one at the expense of the other can be disastrous for obvious reasons.
In the Church, we have two theological traditions, each of which emphasises one value more than the other. Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna explains that it depends on where one begins from: “Do we start from the presentation of Christian revelation or from the heart longing for meaning, the meaning of life?”
Augustine starts with the former. He emphasises the distance between God and the world. We human beings need to abide by the laws of God. Great theologians, like Josef Ratzinger, followed this tradition and this explains his insistence on safeguarding orthodoxy.
Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, starts from human beings and their longing for meaning which, ultimately, is a desire for God’s manifestation.
Taking people from where they are, Thomas sees them coming into full relationship with God by God’s grace. Because of one’s experience, including one’s religious experience, and because of one’s ingrained inclination as explained by Jung, one finds one theology more congruous with one’s being than the other.
This long introduction intends to provide a context to the grateful reception by some, and strong rejection by others, of Pope Francis’s papal document Fiducia Supplicans, allowing priests to bless partners in same-sex couples and couples in irregular situations.
Pope Francis is blessing people to help them on their way to God- Fr Alfred Micallef
This document overturns a 2021 ruling by the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith, which had declared: “The Church cannot bless sin.”
I believe that the different reactions to Fiducia Supplicans are explainable by the theology of one’s probably unconscious preference. It is obvious that Pope Francis’s decision places him within the Thomistic tradition. He puts the human person first. He considers this necessary to lead others – whoever they are – on their way to God. Otherwise, he would be cutting the dialogue short.
In a very interesting article on Francis’s heart and mind, which appeared in America Magazine (January 5, 2024), Theologian John W. Mertens shows how, in his teaching, Pope Francis repeatedly mentions the actions and parables which proclaim God’s mercy towards sinners.
For instance, Pope Francis commented upon Jesus’s reaction when criticised for eating with “many tax collectors and sinners”. Jesus responded, the pope reminded us: “Those who are well have no need of a physician but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Mt 9:12-13).
Some are insisting that Pope Francis is blind to the need for truth. He isn’t. The very restrictions with which he surrounded this permission demonstrate that in no way is he legitimising situations; he is only blessing people to help them on their way to God.
But some might ask: couldn’t this have been achieved even without this papal document? Yes, it could but this document introduced a radical change to the current message of the Church.
Dwelling on the argument that “the Church cannot bless sin” – even though what the document was referring to was the union not the individuals themselves – the Church was indirectly sending the message: “You do not belong to the Church.”
Already burdened by experiencing a lot of rejection, the Church, unwittingly, was overburdening homosexuals and others with an even heavier load: “You do not belong.” How could they ever subscribe to God’s love as addressed to all humanity knowing that they do not belong?
A blessing by the Church of homosexuals, on the other hand, transmits a totally different message: “Even though we cannot approve your ‘marital’ situation, we still know that God loves and cares for you. Consequently, we still wish you all that is good and, first and foremost, your spiritual good. You still belong to God and to God’s family.”
What a difference.
Fr Alfred Micallef is a member of the Society of Jesus.