Pints With Aquinas - Did Pope Francis Approve Blessing Gay Unions? w/ Joe Heschmeyer

Episode Date: December 20, 2023

Joe and Matt discuss Fiducia Supplicans. https://exodus90.com/matt    

G'day everybody, Matt Fradd here. I have some very exciting news. I would like to invite you to spend three weeks with me in a 14th century monastery in Garming, Austria, where we will study philosophy and theology together, May 20th to June 7th. Space is limited, so there is a link in the description for you to click and to sign up for this. It's $3,850 which includes room and board, plus day trips to Vienna and Salzburg, plus an optional fourth week in Rome and Assisi. The class I'm teaching is called ABBA, the call to parenthood.

Now for college students, you'll receive three credits for this class, but you don't have to be interested in the credits to come. So again, click the link in the description below and I hope to see you in Austria. May 20th. So I have been doing the manliest diet over the past. Well, I wanted to say a couple of weeks. I guess it's gone harder on me than I thought, but it's really only been five days.

My wife's been doing carnival for a while. We just recorded a big episode. It's going to come out next week. Hi everybody who's watching. Thanks for being here. Um, but I said to her, I'll do carnival with you, but I need something in the evenings. So I'm doing carnivore and whiskey at night. It's amazing. So my day consists of a cigar steak and whiskey. It could be worse. Yeah. I feel like if you told your younger self this is what adulthood was like, you'd be like, get me there as fast as possible.

Maybe but I don't know, as a teenager I don't think I would have enjoyed a cigar or whiskey. Yeah, fair enough. I would have just pretended to. Yeah, that's true. Like the drinks of choice in teenage years are usually embarrassing. My first drink was an Appletini. My first legal drink was an Appletini and I'm deeply ashamed of that fact. Thursday's making fun of me. He's saying I'm doing the manliest diet and then he said it's the one my wife is doing. That's fair. What's manlier than doing what your wife tells you to do? I hope nothing because I try to live by that code.

So hi everybody. We're gonna discuss certain things today. Obviously one of the things we're gonna be talking about is the Pope's recent declaration about blessings for people in irregular relationships. But before we do that, I want to let you know that we would love you to support the channel just by subscribing, just by clicking that subscribe button and the bell button. Over 70% of people who watch us aren't subscribed, and maybe there's a good reason for that. Maybe you're like, I don't want to subscribe to your stupid channel in which case that's fine. But if you're open to it, do it now. Help support the channel. We'd really appreciate. I'll wait.

I'll wait. You do it. I'll wait. And then we'll. Okay. I think they've done it. Thanks everyone. So good to have you here. I love chatting with you. Unlikewise. I love being chatted with. Yeah, not now. By you. Not now. Gay way. Not just more like two guys getting together. Yeah, yeah, of course. It's pleasant. We don't have to just talk about whiskey and meat to have a normal conversation.

I think given the thumbnail, it's like we need to really... You're moving away from it. You're like, trust me, I have a wife. I promise. You like meat. Right. Right. You're moving away from me. You're like, trust me, I have a wife. You're like, neat. I happen to be color coordinated. It's a coincidence. I didn't even notice. So it's really been sad to see the Internet the last few days.

Steven Crowder came out swinging, I think yesterday, Babylon B have posted several articles and good for them who can blame them. It's it's right material. Yeah. I think the thing they posted yesterday was Protestant sleep soundly knowing he doesn't have to worry about someone in a weird pointy hat says or something like that. So it seems like just from the headlines that came out almost immediately that Pope Francis has said that either gay marriage is now a thing or same sex unions are okay. What did Pope Francis say? Yeah, none of those things. Okay. So, you know, as we're processing this news,

I think there's a few ways you can kind of think about it. One is did some church doctrine change? And the answer to that is honestly no. When you read the document, it goes to great lengths to say everything we said about sexuality was true and is true and remains the case. Pastorally, kind of how we approach this situation might change. And that's not insignificant. But if someone's imagining this is something like church now approves gay marriage or same

sex unions or any of these things, that's objectively false and is contradicted by the document itself. Like the headlines often just said, I mean, I read a number of them, including from the Associated Press, that said things that were literally denied in the document, where it's not even just, this is a matter of interpretation, but this is the church saying we cannot give a blessing to a same sex union and we can't have, you know, marriage is between a man and a woman. All of these things are in the document. And then the headline says the polar opposite. Yeah. And it even stated things like, uh, all okay. I guess there's a fine line. I'd like to walk here, okay, because

one side seems to want to just bend over backwards to say this is I'm being hyperbolic here. I don't know anybody actually saying this right, but this is the greatest document greatest document ever No, that's my that's a really bad Trump impression. Greatest doc. Why am I continuing? Um, it's, you know, and there's, you know, if you have any kind of issue with it, it's, it's really your fault. Right. And then on the other side, you have just what you're saying. Like, uh, James, father James Martin, uh, who was at the New York times. Yeah, New York Times. There was a big picture of him giving a blessing to a couple of dudes holding hands with each other. And in which he says he can now do it publicly.

Yes, which heavily suggests what he may have been doing in the dark before. But yeah, in the closet before. That's it. That's a rush. I shouldn't have said that. This is why we don't do live streams anymore, Joe, is because I say things. Hey, Thursday, would you turn those lights off out there? Thanks, mate.

Yeah, no, that, so, all right, so can you help Catholics who are only angry about this document believe you when you say this isn't the end of the world? What I mean is like, kind of respect the frustration they feel that they live in a world where people are pushing this stuff on them. And now the entire world is interpreting what the Pope said is this. Yeah, I think it's worth pointing out that the church has been through a lot of chaos, even, we don't even have to go into deep history. We can just say during the last few years, seems like every few months there's some huge blow up of, oh, did the church do this make or break kind of thing? Did this finally disprove Catholicism? And then when the dust clears, it's like, okay, it turns out people were getting all

worked up and it didn't turn out to be anything. There were allegations even like the Synod on Synodalities is going to come out swinging and say this heretical thing about marriage or sexuality or fill in the blank and that didn't happen. And so all of these kind of dust ups turn out not to be as big as people's kind of anxiety. I get why people are anxious, but I do not want to downplay. But I do want to say there is a Christian call not to fall into anxiety and there's a Christian call to be discerning, absolutely, but don't let your anxiety distort. This is an ambiguous document and this is maybe ambiguous in some ways that are going to be problematic, which I think is their position to take, to then saying this is contradicted 2000 years of church teaching and this is game over and you know people really are freaking

out over it don't let your hearts be troubled I guess is what I would say to that because It's not as if the holy spirit was like well You guys were good for 2000 years and the warranty just expired and you know Now i'm not going to protect the church anymore We've gotten through craziness before and we're going to get through this craziness I think what you're saying is helpful to some people but it's not helpful for a lot of people because a lot of people agree With what you're saying. They know that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church

Yeah, what they would like to see you and other apollos just do is Admit that a lot of what comes out of Rome is either confusing or at times bad. Yes, they don't feel insane yeah, and I'm glad you said because I think that's the other because bad. They don't feel insane. Yeah. And I'm glad you said it. Because I think that's the other, because you're right. It seems like the two loudest voices right now in the conversation are, this is a good document because it says we can do gay unions now. And the voice is saying, no one thinks that you're crazy for thinking there are people in this first group. And it's like,

are you guys even listening to each other? You know, like you've got people like father James Martin in the New York Times, publicly doing this thing that in the document, let's just step back, in the document, there's permission to do a spontaneous blessing for a couple in a way that isn't going to confuse. And then the very next day, you have a not spontaneous blessing

that is very much targeted to confuse of two men holding hands that looks to all the world like this guy just did a gay marriage. I mean you have to read the text. In other words, like the picture is completely misleading. And so that's not what was called for and that's what's happening. I guess I'm pushing you even further than this. What I'm saying to you, is there any respect in which this document can be criticized? Oh, absolutely. I think it's past early a disaster.

I think it's past early a disaster because whoever was responsible for it, the DDF and Pope Francis and improving it should have known the Father James Martins of the world are going to react in this way to it. And I reading the document. Yes. should have known the father James Martins of the world are going to react in this way to it and I reading the document. Yes I so I saw the headlines before I read the document And then read the documents and thought a the headlines are not right, but b I see why the headlines read as they do. Okay, and so it you know the first time the media distorts it fine

But it's getting a little old to say you keep saying these ambiguous things that sound, like you can't just have this ambiguity that you know is going to be interpreted in this way and then not immediately come out and correct it and say, no, no, no, you've completely misunderstood what I mean. Because of course they're going to take it that way. So either they wanted that reaction or they didn't care if that reaction happened or they didn't foresee that reaction happening. And I don't even know which of those is the least alarming because they would have to be entirely clueless about the modern world not to know you say those things in that way in this time, people are going to think a certain thing about it. And so when people say, yeah,

this document seems problematic, agreed. It seems ambiguous, agreed. I'm only arguing for the much lower bar of this doesn't invalidate any, you know, I'm not, I don't want to say this is not a problem. It is a problem. It's a problem when we downplay the Catholic distinctives. It's probably downplay the radical nature of the church's sexual ethic. Jesus confronts us with the provocandism of it. You know, look in Matthew's gospel. Jesus is asked about divorce and marriage, and he presents a vision of sexuality that is so profound to the people of his day, not just by 21st century moral standards, but by first century, that the disciples respond, well, such is the case with marriage, it'd be better not to get married. And then Jesus is like,

let me introduce you to the teaching on celibacy. And it's shocking, it's profound. And so whether you're called to sexual monogamy or celibacy, those are hard teachings. Jesus acknowledges their hard teaching. When the church downplays the difficulty of that teaching, that's a false compassion. We need to acknowledge this is a hard teaching. You may struggle with it. You may fall while you're trying to live it out. And that's normal and that's expected. We're going to stay with you and help you fight this.

But we cannot lower the moral bar because it's not our bar. Jesus gave us that bar. Mason Hickman But do you think that the church is lowering the bar? Jason Kuznicki I don't think the church is lowering the bar in a doctrinal way. Do you think Pope Francis is lowering the bar? Not in a doctrinal way. I think what's happening is there's, so there's two ways to talk about sin and sinful relationships and everything else.

One is to acknowledge here's what's going wrong. And there's an important role for that. The other is to say here's the good effort. Here's the good that you're going for. And a past an important role for that. The other is to say, here's the good effort, here's the good that you're going for. And a pastoral approach needs to balance those two. Like you mean well, but you're doing poorly. Yeah. Every time I got a confession, I, as a sinner, or else I wouldn't be there, say, bless me, Father, for I have sinned. Right. And so, as a sinner, you can absolutely get a blessing. This is not news to anyone. When you're at mass and you can't receive communion because you're in mortal sin, what do you do?

You go for a blessing. And so, we've known that someone in mortal sin can receive a blessing. This is literally, as you say, the beginning of confession, that you ask for a blessing so that what? So you have the strength to seek repentance, to be forgiven. All right. So here's the difference, it seems to me. It seems like the document is saying, and I'm probably wrong, but maybe this is why there's some ambiguity here.

I read a section that did make it seem like the couple can be blessed. It says it explicitly. Right. I was. Yes. So we know these two things. Prior to the document, we knew these two things. You can't bless a union, you can bless an individual. Now there's this third category. So two things happen with this document. The first is the DDF says, well, there's different ways we can talk about blessings. And that's true. Think about like even the word benediction, which is, you know, the word for blessing, literally, ben-a-good, diction, speech, like it's to speak well.

Malediction, like a curse, is the opposite. So you have liturgical blessings, but you also have this much broader sense in which the word blessing is used. And so people go up for, you know, getting their marriage blessed, but they also go up just to get individually blessed. You know, I'm going on a journey, will you give me a blessing, Father? That sort of thing happens. So that is a little bit Wild West frontier, theologically.

Right, right, yeah. And by that I mean this, like, blessings are mentioned all throughout the Bible. We even talk about blessing God, and nowhere does it say, here's the definition of what a blessing is. We ask God to bless us, we say, blessed be God in the divine praise. It's like, well, we're not dedicating God to God's use, we're not... clearly when God blesses us, that's different than when we bless God. The document talks about that, the ascending and descending nature of blessings. And so, what the document does well, and I want to give it credit

for this, is acknowledges that this thing that we may take for granted, this idea of blessing, many of us haven't really thought deeply about what a blessing even is or what's happening with the blessing. That's doing that. And then the second thing it's doing is saying in the kind of limits of this final frontier or, you know, wild west of, of blessings, there are some forms of blessing that it says a same sex couple can receive. Now that's where it becomes much more problematic. For a couple reasons.

And that's where it's different as the man coming up to communion who asked for a blessing. Right. I mean, to stretch the analogy, if I walked up. Hand in hand with another man. Or another man or another mistress, or my computer that I say I watch pornography on and ask him to bless me and the computer.

Right. I mean, that's a bit of a stretch, but you see the point. It's like, if you're saying that a couple can be blessed, what exactly is being blessed? Is it the individuals so that they can strive for holiness or is it this union? What does the document say is what I'm asking you? Well, it says the couple, which is somewhere between an individual and a union. And so that's where the rubber hits the road because in blessing a couple, are you blessing their union? Are you blessing other elements of this interpersonal

human relationship? Like you can bless a couple of people, but blessing a couple as couples. So the language of same sex couple is where a lot of people's alarm bells go off and quite reasonably like, what are we trying to say here? Yeah, because in the example you gave like, you know, a lot of people have like some Maybe you even do get your computer blessed because you don't want to look at pornography, right? Or you put like a religious sticker But if you're actively looking at pornography seeking a blessing, I think the priest would say no, this is not appropriate Well, likewise if you've got two men holding hands in a romantic

way, and they seem to be actively engaged in a same sex romantic relationship, as we saw on the cover of the New York Times, is that appropriate to give a blessing there in that context? And the answer seems to be profoundly and obviously, no, it's not appropriate. But now there's, if not a green light, I think at least maybe a blinking yellow light that the certain priests like Father Martin kind of drive through. Yeah, I thought that one of the best responses to this was Bench, Trent Horn on Ben Shapiro's show came out yesterday. I know Trent published it today or some of it today. I haven't watched his video, but I thought he did a really good job, I thought, at walking that line between giving a really charitable read on

one of the things he said that I thought was important is you're not going to understand this unless you understand what just happened in Germany. Can you sum it up for us? So Germany's been full-fledged pushing forward with trying to create a liturgical right to bless same-sex unions, which is just, and in the process seems to be almost tempting the Vatican to try to crack down on them and try to provoke a schism and so it's really alarming the National Catholic reporter had a priest who was I think is whoever he is He's a reporter at the largest like German language Catholic paper

Openly talking about they don't want to go to send a schism So they know what they're doing like they are playing chicken with the church and the they don't want to go to syndicism. So they know what they're doing. Like they are playing chicken with the church and the church doesn't want a church of Germany, like we saw with England, where it just becomes an unrecoverable loss. So whatever the church pastorally can do to not lose Germany, I think she's trying to say, how far can we go to meet you? So in this sense, I'm reminded of the to say, how far can we go to meet you? So in this sense, I'm reminded of the ecumenical documents that we've seen in the last 50 years, say, from the church, where the Catholic Church will sit down with some non-Catholic group

and say, what are the areas of agreement? What are the areas that we already have in common? And the documents are generally a good effort, but they're marred by an exaggerated sense of agreement. That you know, you say in the Catholic document, let's say the LDS, you might say, oh, we both believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And you kind of gloss over, but we don't actually mean the same thing by those terms. And I see the pastoral impulse to seek the good, to see what's good and what you already believe, whatever you already have. But the danger is if you're not also balancing that with,

but here's some distinctions we need to make, it's ambiguous and misleading. So I think Trent is absolutely right. The church is saying, how can we stop Germans from going off the rails into schism? We can't let them do this thing of having a liturgical right, but is there something they can do when two men or two women come up and want to be blessed? Is there something we can do short of that, that isn't just black and white evil, that is nevertheless encouraging them on their spiritual journey that will hopefully end with them repenting and being full integrated members of the church again? That's a good question to have. And if we're not trying to say, how can we move heaven and earth to find the one lost sheep, then we're also not following Christ.

But we don't succeed in that, I would say, by watering down the truth. We have to find other ways of being both bold in the truth and presenting it in a loving way and accompanying people in difficult, messy situations. So it sounds like what you're saying is this document was ambiguous, ambiguous in parts, that it may have came out at the wrong time and in the wrong way. And so you think that it can be criticized, but you also think a charitable read of it shows that, you know, a Pope Francis isn't trying to justify homosexual acts. He's not saying that homosexual marriage can ever be a thing. He's simply saying that a couple can be blessed

who are in a homosexual relationship. And I think the problem what a lot of Catholics have is they'll say, okay, but if I like leave my wife and I find some woman and we're about to go cross country to live in wherever, if I knock on the presbytery door and say, and I explained that, and say, would you mind giving us a blessing?

It seems highly inappropriate for the priest to give us a blessing. I mean, he might say, this is not okay. And that might indeed be what happens when the gay couple comes to the priest. It's just that it seems like if you can understand why me and the woman shacking up doesn't seem like a thing that should be blessed or at least said in that way, it seems like the blessing the priest could give me is here's the blessing confession. So I'll hear both of your confessions, but I can't bless this relationship. Yeah. So am I wrong? Am I being too hard on the pope?

No, I don't't I don't think so So one of the lines was, you know, a loving mother isn't going to refuse a blessing for her children That was one of the arguments made kind of for this position But I was reminded of those parents who let their kids drink underage at their house because they don't want them out somewhere else And driving home and they're worried legitimately. I don't want something fatal to happen to you. I don't want you. I love you so much I don't want to see you get hurt. Yeah, but the way they're responding to that is I think dangerous of allowing Maybe they need to take a harder line and a harder stand. Here's a quote I guess is a quote from in the chat

Okay, Brian Holdsworth said the fundamental problem here is that there is no such thing as a same-sex couple according to a Catholic anthropology or sexual ethic. They are just two people who are using each other sexually. Right. And so I started to kind of get to that one of the problems with this, and Larry Chapp points this out too, is what is this category of same-sex couple? Now, in one sense, you're recognizing a sort of reality. Yeah. In the same way that if you're talking about the days of slavery, you can talk about masters and slaves, even though you don't think anyone is ontologically a master or a slave. So we're using the colloquial language. I think there's reasons to push back against that, but there's also, I mean,

a couple isn't a defined term and that's, you know, like there are sometimes, this is, uh, I know Eve Tushnet is kind of famous for pushing this non-sexual, but still emotionally involved in seemingly romantic same sex relationships. So when we say couple, what do we mean by that term? What are they wanting? What are they trying to do? Cause all of that is really relevant morally to figure out what can we bless here. So in the document, one of the things it talks about is blessing the kind of affection or love.

I'm going off of memory here. I believe it's paragraph 31, but it may be misremembering. And all of that seems very problematic and very kind of loaded. I feel like, yes, there is a way in which we can say two people caught up in a same-sex union may be willing the good of the other. Yeah. And we want to bless and acknowledge that. Yeah. But to say that there are sinful sexual relationships is not to say there is two things,

holy matrimony and haven of filth. Right. Or sex slavery. I mean, there are obviously gradations here, but in a day and age where structures of sin are seeking to convince our fallen passions that sodomy or pornography or adultery or fornication are good, I would like to hear the one institution on the planet that's been kind of put in charge of making things clear about this be very, very, very clear about this. Yeah, I think that's quite right.

And what's more, I mean, the number of times the document referred to these as irregular, was they're not just irregular? That's downplaying the severity. If you're not married to someone, that might be an irregular situation, but it could be worked out. But in this case, it's actually deeper because of the fact that they're intrinsically disordered. I'm not trying to bash on people who struggle with same-sex attraction or any of those things. Just to say, if a couple is shacking up,

you can say, let's get you guys married. But if a same sex couple is shacking up. It can't be regularized. Right. Regularized. And so the pastoral approach you need to take is different than just an irregular kind of relationship. You can regularize. This can't be regularized.

That's what the language of intrinsically disordered, which I know offends a lot of people, but that's what that language means is we can't put this union, this relationship, this coupling to its proper ontological order. We've shared some of the reasons why this may have been an imprudent thing to put out, one, that it's ambiguous, two, how it came out, when it came out. And you could take issue with that.

I'm just saying these are some issues that people offer. But I think another issue is what is a priest to do now when a same sex couple approach him and say, hey, Pope Francis said you can bless us. Like, what a very, very awkward situation to be in. And then how do you tell me this? How is the priest to respond in a way that you think the document suggests he should? Yeah, that's, you know, I don't know. I mean, I can say here's the kind of vague advice that the document gives and here's what he's told to do and

not do to a certain extent. But the document makes clear that further advice is not forthcoming. So it's just like, well, you're on your own. And unfortunately, this is how a lot of this stuff happens is the Vatican, rather than clarifying and unifying, makes these statements which may be true but are confusing and potentially misleading, potentially open to misinterpretation, and then says, parish priests, you figure it out. You're on your own. And so I feel a tremendous sadness and sympathy for two groups in this. One is the parish priest

on the front line who's trying to do right by God and by his people and saying how can I love them the way Christ wants me to love them and do the thing I've been instructed to do when the instructions are confusing, maybe vague. In the second group, I have a tremendous sadness and sympathy for the same sex attracted people who are trying really hard to live celibately and who receive this like a slap in the face. trying really hard to live celibately and who received this like a slap in the face. Yeah. It also seems to me analogous to when rumors would be circulating back in the 80s and 90s that the church is about to change celibate, the celibate priesthood. Yeah. And so with somebody who was discerning the priesthood, I thought, oh, maybe if, okay, so if I want to get married, should I wait?

And I didn't discern the priesthood that seriously that it was ever a serious consideration, but I think for a lot of men it was. And that was never coming out of the Vatican or it wasn't intended to. Something like this could cause people who have same-sex attraction, who are in same-sex relationships, I mean, we all know what it's like to try to justify our passions. I know what it's like. We're like, you know, I think the church is kind of changing its mind on here. Like that seems to be the impression coming out of every news outlet. And I don't think you can just blame the news outlets. Yeah, I think this is something that needs to be taken very seriously.

People who are caught up in cycles of sexual sin, whether it's same sex, opposite sex, masturbation, whatever it is. If they get any kind of nod, wink, nudge, green light, yellow light, that maybe this isn't so bad, that is such a tempting thing to want to say, okay, great. I'm not going to do the hard battle because, you know, God loves me anyway. And it's like, God does love you anyway, but you still need to do the hard battle. All right. We want to take some questions. We have a lot that have come in and I apologize in advance to the fact that we will not be able to get to all of these and I'll make sure I let you kind of sum up your thoughts

here at the end because I don't want to cut you off. I know this is a very difficult topic to talk about because it feels like people are just looking for a reason to attack you here and so I want to try to give you more time here. But I haven't read these questions ahead of time, so feel free to say I've answered it or taken a swing at it. But local support, a Catholic doom guy, best name. I'd like to know how paragraph 31 isn't a huge problem. An individual blessing of a repentance sinner is completely orthodox. A blessing of a couple in a disorder relationship is not by the very use of the word couple.

A couple implies an ongoing disordered relationship. We've addressed that, but anything else you want to say? Yeah, I think that paragraph 31 is where a lot of the attention is rightly focused. Do you have it in front of you? I do. Do you want to read it? Yeah. So the header for section three, which is right above it says blessing of couples in a regular situation And if couples of the same sex and then paragraph 31 within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility

Yeah, a blessing for couples in a regular situation 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. Now that's clearly saying don't do the German thing. Yeah. In such cases a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value, but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God. So. Okay. We talked earlier about two types of blessing.

Like when there's a blessing. You got to continue. You will. Okay. But also involves the invocation of blessing. Oh, sorry. I was saying feel free to interject, but I want to go back to it Oh, yeah, okay. Yeah upon those who recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help Yeah, do not claim a legitimation of their own status But who beg that all that is true good and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched healed and elevated By the presence of the Holy Spirit. So I want to pause there and

say this is what Father James Martin didn't do. You're not supposed to give the blessing to those people who say we want you to legitimate our union. We want you to regularize this by putting the church's stamp of approval on this same-sex union. Rather, it's two people who are in a sexually messed up situation, and it highlights both people in other opposite sex irregular situations and same sex who say We need God's help Can you bless what's good in this relationship? Right and and so that is walking an extremely fine line Because what is easy to see from the outside is that looks more

like you're legitimating the status quo, but I'll continue. These forms of blessing express the supplication that God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his spirit, what classical theology calls actual grace, so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity. See, there it is again. There's a nod to this is about relationships. This is about couples. And if you think that we're wrong to assume that, can you at least see why people might

think that's what it's being said? Right. When you label it as involving couples and you talk about blessing the relationship, now there's a way you can take that in an orthodox way of saying if two men are friends and then they start a gay relationship, the way you bless that is to strengthen them to be friends and not be sexually involved with each other. That is not the natural reading someone is going to take of the idea of blessing a gay relationship. Yeah, so it says so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the gospel.

But if I'm in a disordered relationship, the way for that to mature is for it to end. Jason Right. That they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love. And so, again, there's a perfectly orthodox way of understanding that. Mason Okay, yeah. Jason But it is a little more strained, and it is not the way someone's mind immediately goes to, oh you just

blessed. Could you do a search on couple or couples Thursday so we can kind of see what the document has to say about this? You're also, you're sharing this with them I presume. Good man. Well there's... Oh that's the French. We don't read French. I'm joking. What has been said in this declaration regarding the blessings of same-sex couples is sufficient. So it is explicitly... Yeah, read that again for those in the back. What has been said in this declaration regarding the blessing of same-sex couples is sufficient to guide the prudent and fatherly discernment of ordained ministers. In other words, you're not going to get any more help, Parish Priest, you're on your own.

And this is good enough, you don't need any other instruction. Well, let me read the rest of it because that is what it says, but I want to make sure people see that. So what we've said is sufficient to guide the prudent and fatherly discernment of ordained ministers in this regard, thus beyond the guidance provided above, no further. That's just so unhelpful. No further responses should be expected about possible ways to regulate details or practicalities regarding blessings of this type. I think what Catholics need to hear

is it's okay to be dissatisfied with documents like this, because I feel like from some quarters in the church, it feels like we're being told this is perfectly reasonable. If you don't understand it, it's because you're a rad trad and you hate the pope and you don't give him the benefit of the doubt. And you're like, if that's what you're telling people, if you're telling people there's no flex in the joints, as it were, that you to accept

people infallibility is to accept every expression that comes out of the magisterium, how it's posed, when it's posed, then you're, it's like you leave people to say, ah, I don't know what to do then. Right. Whereas if you give them the freedom to say, no, this is, this is unhelpful. And yet I love the Pope. I pray for the Pope and the church hasn't changed his teaching. Yeah. So even say the first council of Nicaea, some of the language is theologically ambiguous where it can be read in an Orthodox way or a non-Orthodox. So believers, I want to get back to that after his believers in Nicaea disagreed about how to understand the Trinity even afterwards. Cause some of the technical expressions. And if we can say that if St.

Peter can say that Paul's writings are hard to understand, if scripture can say another part of scripture is confusing, then we should be able to say the Pope is confusing. The Magisterium is confusing. Right. That's not saying it's wrong. It's saying it's open to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. And so when you have people policing that, and it's not coming from the Vatican, but you have like popular Catholics who act like you can't be confused or it's sinful to be unable to understand what's going on. That is a sort of Phariseeism that is absolutely inappropriate because there's a rigidity there of saying that a person can't struggle. And

that's not what a loving Mother does with her children to say you can't be confused about the instructions You can't struggle and so that's just not an appropriate response And so the same compassion we should show for the person struggling with same-sex attraction We should also show for the person struggling with the document saying yes, this is confusing. This is hard This is difficult. Let's accompany you, rather than let's just demonize you for having a difficulty. That's a great answer, thank you. All right, paragraph 31, within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings

for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex. So there you go. I heard people online saying it wasn't saying you could bless the couple. Oh yeah, no, so that's why I was wanting to be... The two falsehoods I've heard are one that it's saying you can bless same-sex unions or marriage, and the other is this is nothing new, this is just blessing individuals. And those are both false. The document explicitly is in about a third category in between those two.

And so I think a lot of the reporting in both directions on this has just been factually unmoored from reality. Can we pull up the super chats Thursday? I want to make sure we get to these people. Big thanks for, by the way, people, if you haven't yet, do us a favor, subscribe and click the thumbs up. Thanks for being here.

All right, let's see. Eliezer Palmer says, hello, would you say that the declaration at the very least is imprudent given how Western media currently functions? The Vatican appears unaware of how the public would react to such a document. So we've kind of responded to that. I guess another question, a way to phrase this differently is should this be a primary concern of the Vatican? Because someone might argue, well, the secular press is going to interpret things however they want to interpret

things. So are we supposed to change how we talk because of them? Well, in some ways, yes. Meaning like there's an older use of the word worship that can also mean honor or venerate. And so if you read some 19th century Catholic manuals, we'll talk about worshipping Mary or the Saints. But because no one today is going to understand what we mean by that and it's going to sound heretical and false. We use other words to describe that. Everything's received according to the mode of the receiver. A guy said once.

And I think you have an obligation to make sure that you're not just presenting something that a theologian will recognize is true, but that the audience you're addressing will understand and recognize in an accurate and authentic way. And so, yes, even if you do your best, the media might be malicious and misinterpreting. And I've acknowledged some of the headlines were just factually the opposite of what the document said, but other ambiguities were preventable errors. And you should avoid giving that confusion if you can. So as for the Vatican being unaware of the reaction, I think that's a charitable interpretation. I mean, Father James Martin isn't the Associated Press.

He's not unknown to the highest echelons in the Vatican. He's met numerous times with Pope Francis, and here he is doing the thing the document seemingly says not to do, invoking the document. For a photograph. For a photograph, for the New York Times, right? This is, and so in that sense, it does seem obvious that if the Vatican didn't anticipate that, that they now have a situation on their hand that they should probably address and equally publicly say, this guy who's understood to be the Pope's man on this issue is actually doing something the Pope didn't want, if that's the case.

Well, in fairness to Pope Francis, didn't he rebuke the German Cardinals for not just getting wind that they might ordain women, in which case he said in this document that both could be excommunicated. But so didn't he also come down hard, but the press didn't pick that up? Yeah. So he's pushed back against the Germans for trying to push forward with this plan. And in the kind of justification, part of that is creating this liturgical right. Part of that is also just a flagrant disobedience to the Vatican. So it does seem here.

I mean, if you, if you read this as a response to the Germans, the danger is that they sort of got a concession by, by threatening ecclesial suicide. And once you do that, once you negotiate with terrorists, you don't solve the problem long term. So I think there's a lot load. You know, I, maybe like this is a different situation. Of course. It's not one for one, but maybe like when John Paul the second, uh, infallibly declared that only men could be priests and then kind of allowed for altar girls. I think that was a kind of concession there.

And I think what we find is that it doesn't work. I mean, let's just look at the track record because as a Catholic, you can look at your liberal Protestant neighbors and say, well, are there churches flourishing because they have given up the fight on sexual morality? And it's like, no, the answer is not. Yes. You see this in Germany, you see this in England, you see this in America, that it isn't as if watering down the gospel is going to be the key to evangelization. So I think there are people who are very well intentioned saying,

how can we move heaven and earth to bring you into the fold? But they should have the self-awareness to say, this does not seem to be working and doesn't seem to be working anywhere it's been tried. Kate Howell says, I'm a fairly recent convert under two years, who before conversion was outspokenly LGBT. I want to believe Pope Francis doesn't understand the harm he is doing to chase Catholics with SSA and our supporters, but he very likely does. I hope that's wrong. I mean, certainly the harm is very real.

I mean, I know from people who've worked with courage, I know from Living Waters folks like Marco Casanova, he and Andy Kamisky came out with a reaction. You could hear the pain of just like, this was a slap in the face. Because to be fighting that much and to have people, you know, people who participate in something to try to integrate their sexuality in this way, they may have one foot in the church and one foot in the world already because they've very strong secular pressures saying don't fight for chastity, just be proud of who you are in heavy quotations. And so to get the church saying bless that, seems like a push on the wrong side of this tug of war that may be going on in the hearts of many people.

And so I think it's, I think it is profoundly dangerous if that's the message that's received. And so I think for those in a position to reach out, reach out in great compassion because people may be struggling even more than they were a week ago. All right. Another question here. Let's see. Matthew Schmidt. Two people can be blessed to live chastely. Any relationship can be blessed to be freed from imperfection. Imperfections. The document is fine. I mean, again, there's a way of interpreting that. But if I said pedophilic relationships can be blessed by the church and just said that full stop,

I don't think you would say, well, any relationship can be blessed. It's fine. OK. But to push back on that, Pope Francis didn't just say homosexual couples can be blessed full stop. He has a whole document. True. And, but I think part of the issue is the way the document is being received. Part of the issue is the document itself, regardless of how it's being received, contains ambiguities within it. So I agree that the document is fine if by fine you mean can be harmonized with Catholic teaching. If by fine you mean isn't going to cause scandal and confusion, well, open a newspaper. Because I think that's clearly not true. The document can be both possible to make sense of in a theologically orthodox way and

open to theologically non-orthodox interpretations that were predictable and avoidable. Anna says, not to mention people presenting themselves as a same-sex couple regardless of sexual activity or lack thereof are already in grave sin. That sin is called scandal, not to mention near occasion. So it might be helpful to talk about, John Paul II and familiar as consortio, talks about the possibility of a same-sex couple living in a, in disordered sexual relationship, you know, living as brother and sister. And what he's acknowledging there, and I think this is where things get really messy, is you may have built a life with someone who isn't your spouse.

You may have kids, you may have all sorts of life built up. So, you know, you get married at 18 in the church, you get divorced, and then five years later you get married outside the church, have eight kids, say. And then you're saying, oh, I can't go back to the person I married. I don't even know where that person is. Maybe they're married to somebody else now, civilly and blah, blah, blah. What am I supposed to do now? And one of the solutions is to live chastely and you can continue to live as brother and sister. And so the question is now with things like gay adoption and everything else, do we need to talk about living as brother and brother or sister and sister? So all that's to

say, this is an unsettled area because this is a new problem the church is facing. How can one do that in a way that doesn't cause scandal? I know of one gay couple in quotation marks that's trying to live chastely. And they both are Catholics, as far as I know. And they're both, I think that might be imprudent, it might be a near occasion of sin. But I would hesitate to say they're in grave sin no matter what automatically. I do think it's playing with fire. Yeah, okay. I want to get to another question. But before I do that, I think we could all agree that even though these topics are important and are sometimes worth addressing

publicly like we're doing, what's not always helpful for our sanctity is to be obsessed or and by obsessed, I mean having maybe too much interest or spending too much emotional and intellectual energy on a topic that I have no control or authority over that isn't to say we shouldn't be aware. It's not to say that we shouldn't have good arguments and responses to people who ask us about this.

But one thing we have to be doing is growing in faith ourselves. And so I want to point people to Exodus90.com. We'll put a link in the description below. Starting on the 1st of January, leading up till Easter, men all around the world are going to get their life in order. They're going to spend less time blaming other people about the state of the world and more time blaming themselves. Over the course of that 90 days, you as a man, if you join this course, will be joining a small cohort of men who you will journey with over the course of those 90 days.

It even has a way for you to find men in your area on the Exodus 90 app. So download that. You give up things you'd rather not give up, like alcohol and sweets and snacks between meals and unnecessary internet use. You take on things you probably don't want to take on, like cold showers and maybe an hour of prayer every day, which up until now has been difficult because we've been distracting ourselves to death. This is an amazing way for you to grow in holiness. The stories I've heard from men who've done Exodus 90 are superb.

So go to Exodus nine zero dot com slash Matt. Again, it starts on the 1st of January. So sign up now using that link. And yeah, get a great start to the new year. Exodus nine zero dot com slash Matt. And the app is really, really, really top notch as well. It's got a lot of amazing stuff in it. You done it before?

I have actually Lamar Hunt, the co-owner of the Chiefs. He'd done it and he mentioned it to me one time. And I thought, well, if he can do it. I'm young and I should be able to do it. And it was tough. I've done it a few times. Actually, my brother's in law and I, we, we occasionally do it together and every maybe every other year or so.

So one of the things I do, I think people don't realize about Exodus is the fraternal nature of it. So it's not just imposing hard things upon yourself. It's also growing in relationship with brothers and in a day and age where I think the overemphasis on sex in this culture has led men to be afraid of having intimate relationships with other men, this is kind of the antidote to that. I mean, there's something men like to bond over projects, and this is a spiritual project.

Yeah. And so I do find it's been really good for my relationship with my, you know, this is my wife's sister's husband. So it's like we're all just kind of married into the same family. And I think we've grown greatly by having the spiritual journey to be on together. I want to apologize to our local supporters, because before I knew we were going to focus on this topic specifically, I kind of thought that, um, so that people had sent in questions about Catholicism 101. So I apologize that we haven't got a lot to those. Let's see here. Here's a local supporter. Cooper KTM says, question for Joe. I understand the concept of hate the sin and not

the sinner. However, I get the feeling that this is being used by some Catholics to tacitly endorse sinful behavior. How do you walk the line? The hate the sin throat clearing is getting a bit tiresome. line. The hate, the sin throat clearing is getting a bit tiresome. I am finding myself increasingly resentful of the tolerance. I know that's bad, but that's what I'm wrestling with. I don't think you're alone and that has to do with what we're talking about today. Yeah, it seems very timely. And actually, as the question was beginning, without really thinking about who would ask it, being a local supporter, I expected it to go the opposite direction.

Cause I hear a lot of complaining about love the sin and hate the sinner as being a veil in order to hate sinners. Yeah, yeah. And so I think both sides get dissatisfied, which may be a sign that like, yeah, this is a hard thing to do well. And C.S. Lewis gives really good advice

that the one person he can apply this to easily is himself. That's precisely because he loves himself he wants more. And that's actually the message we probably should have led with. Because that's the way to understand this document and all of this. Like how do we love people enough to both say, you know what, let me back up.

We are experiencing this right now with my small children. I've got a four year old and a two year old. We also have a baby, but this doesn't apply to the baby. When the kids act up, we want them to know both, this is bad behavior and we love you intensely when you're good and when you're bad, and our love is not conditional. And this is what I think the church is trying to express

to people who are same-sex attracted and who that has not been their experience of the love of the church or the love of Christ, where they feel rejected by both Jesus and his church, and we're wanting to say, no, no, no, no, no. God really does love you. Unfortunately, while that message is being delivered, there's also another group of people saying, God loves you because there's nothing wrong with what you're doing. And how do we distinguish ourselves from that group without losing that really important message that God loves you even

when you're screwed up, even in the midst of all of the messiness of your life, even in the midst of sin. And the line Pope Francis and the D.D.F. document go to are Christ came and died for us while we were sinners. Like it isn't I need to get my life in order so that God can bless me. It's God needs to bless me while my life is out of order or my life is never going to get in order. So I think that's the difficult message, but this is a message of Christianity. So we don't have the luxury of saying,

here's an easier message, God hates you sinners, or God is okay with your sin. No, he loves you enough to not leave you where you are. He wants better things for you that you should want for yourself if you love yourself properly. Okay, we've got some more super chats here. Carlos says, when we bless a couple, we are blessing a relationship. When that couple is engaged in sinful relationships and has no intention of repentance, we are blessing sin. I would add something to that,

and then I'd like you maybe to try to push back on this, just like we push back on the other fellow. Maybe read the next one, because I think it says the opposite. Well, maybe, yeah, maybe we'll read them one after the other. But I the next one, because I think it says the opposite. Well, maybe, yeah, maybe we'll read them one after the other. But I guess the caveat I would add here is when the couple is engaged in public, right,

and ongoing sinful relationship. Because a couple might come to you for a blessing and you have no idea that they're in an adulterous relationship or any kind of other relationship. So you're not blessing the sin if you don't know about it. And there might be sinful dynamics within an otherwise okay relationship. Yeah.

You know, you've got a company that says, come in and bless our workers. And you're like, well, you're paying them criminally low wages. Let's contrast these two, can we? Because this seems to be the divide within the church right now. We have one side saying, when we bless a couple, we are blessing a relationship. When that couple is engaged in, let's say, a public simple relationship and has no intention of repentance. We are blessing sinful. Stop. Okay. And then you have on the other side, people saying what Matthew is saying here. Blessing a relationship is not blessing sin. It's blessing two people to live chastely. Archbishop Chaput makes it clear that there can be, can you scroll down a bit Thursday?

There can be two same sex people who live together and are chased. Yeah, those are the two. I mean, then you are two wolves. And it says to, I mean, I guess there's obviously extremes apart from these two, but this does kind of, it's either blessing relationship is blessing the sin. Blessing relationship is just blessing the relationship to live free of sin. Yeah. And it does seem like a couple is sort of the mean in between those two extremes, which makes it a dangerous ground to sort of walk because it seems very close to blessing sin, particularly if the couple isn't obviously repentant and trying to,

if they're wanting to live in a sinful union with each other, then it seems absolutely inappropriate to bless it. In the document, it says not to do this in concurrence with something like a same-sex union, because that would give the appearance of a liturgical blessing. But it's like, well, yeah, but if they're getting same-sex married, they don't seem repentant at all. They seem like they're unrepentantly involved in the relationship. That is different in kind from a relationship of two people who've struggled with sexual sin with one another and are trying to figure out how to preserve whatever's authentically good in that relationship free of all the sinful dimensions.

I don't see how both of those things could be happening simultaneously. Not in other words, two people could be attracted to each other, fallen in sexual sin, and then continue to have a friendship. That happens with opposite sex couples all the time. Your friends are then ex that maybe you've had a sinful past with, but now you're trying to say, can we purify this and elevate this? Da da da da. Right. So if it's simultaneous with, and we want to get married outside of the church, well, you don't look repentant. So much of the nuances that are going to be involved in every particular relationship

aren't, and to be fair, can't be expressed here but I mean there's a big difference between say Joe and John who you know fell into impure relations who are otherwise trying to be good Catholics and the two of them go to the priest and admit as much and say look we want to be free of this stuff could you please bless us well okay that's cool but even then it seems like I'm blessing you individually and I'm blessing you and I'm making a prayer that says something like we pray that they would live separately. But then you got another couple who come and say, hey, me and John are in a same sex relationship. And could you could you please bless us? Like, what's the priest to do? Is the priest to say in part as part of that prayer that you be free of these?

I mean, I would hope that he would say that, but somehow I don't get the impression from the document that that's what the Vatican would like. Maybe I'm wrong. Yeah, we're not given clear instruction. And so this is, this is the danger. So I think there is a move in the church to move away from manualism, you know, so the dogmatic manuals had like a very finely crafted solution to every possible problem. And it was kind of one size fits all.

And I think there was a pushback against that as being too rigid and too rigorous and etc. But the opposite extreme is these kind of vague moral principles and then telling priests you figure it out we're not gonna give you any more help. Yeah. Knowing the different priests in Germany and in the US and in Zambia where they've just announced they're not gonna implement this, they're gonna interpret those radically different ways. We need to begin to wrap up here because you need to get to the airport. So do we have any more questions here that we should take Thursday? All right, quickly, let's get to them. We'll try

to keep the answers short. Thank you for those who have sent in super chats. No call to repentance, says Carlos, no call to separation. There is no way to make blessing sodomy orthodox. It's blasphemy. The final battle will be about marriage and the family. Elodie Fatima. All right. Yeah, I do think there's a difference between blessing sodomy and blessing to people who struggle with same sex. James Brazil says to me, the Pope is very clear here that this is to bless the gay away.

He doesn't say that, does he? Because I don't think the word repentance is mentioned in the document, is it? No, there's a desire to be freed from the imperfections, which may be a euphemistic way of saying repent and believe the gospel. But parody would be nice. Yes. So again, I think it can be interpreted and we should strive to interpret it charitably. But the Pope and the D.D.F. have not done themselves a lot of favors, if that's what

they're trying to say. OK, he continues, because they admit fault and want to desire. So I agree with you, like this can, that's what's kind of problematic in a way about this papacy is that things that are said can and are interpreted in contradictory ways and then aren't clarified. Adam Salih And also, I mean, this is being labeled as an innovation and a development in the theology of blessings, right? Like it is describing its own approach as innovative, declaring itself to be a development. If all you're saying is what we knew a week ago, which is two sinners can come before

and get a blessing, what's innovative or what's new, what's different? And so that's opened the door to there's a change in teaching or at least pastoral discipline. Okay, Katrina Wassel says from Catechism 892, to this ordinary teaching, the faithful are, that's where the, to adhere to it with religious ascent, which though distinct from the ascent of faith is nonetheless an extension of it. Right. So we are bound to ascent to this teaching. Joe, so why do you have any criticism of it?

Yeah. So one of the things, and Canon Law talks about this, and the church talks about this, is there's an authentic place to seek Clarity and to push back in the face of ambiguity and so the kind of shut up and take it approach doesn't work and Never were I mean that so there's the by all means I'm a big believer in the goodness of religious ascent and to say even if I don't see how x y or z could be true I accept it because I trust the church more than I trust my own judge That's different from saying I will ascend I just don't know what you're saying.

Exactly. And so when two people can read the document in 180 degree opposite ways on important questions like, can two unrepentantly homosexual people who declare themselves in a couple have that relationship blessed, I've already seen people saying, obviously the answer is yes, and obviously the answer is no, both of them citing to the document which one deserves the fidelity and the asset. All right, Freeman Gunner says, what about the argument that the couple described in paragraph 31 is impossible

because if they did have the conditions described there, they wouldn't be approaching the priest as a couple for a blessing. I mean, I can't, I think you can imagine French cases, and I think this is a danger. You can imagine a French case where maybe two people were living a gay lifestyle, they've got kids, and they're saying, okay, this is a mess,

we need to get this right. And we need to go to the priest, and we don't know what to do. We have a good question here from Anthony. By the way, Anthony has a channel called avoiding Babylon I Think it's quite good Just like he would that's my opinion Caldeon just like he wouldn't endorse everything I would say I haven't seen everything he said so I'm reluctant to endorse everything

He says nobody's doing that when they endorse a channel good go follow him. He's a good guy He says did the document give people with same-sex attraction? He says, did the document give people with same sex attraction legitimate reason to believe the church is heading towards normalizing same sex acts? And I think the answer is it depends who you are, but yes, it seems that many people will take it that way. If not, was this document purposely misleading? I mean, I'm going to say the answer is no to it doesn't give legitimate reason, because if you understand theology, you should realize the DDF cannot overturn Jesus and

So even if you took the worst interpretation that everyone in the DDF is totally okay with homosexual actions They didn't say that they said the opposite of that and they couldn't have said that if what we believe about the Holy Spirit Protecting the church is true. So in that sense, no, there are not legitimate reasons to believe that. Nevertheless, there were foreseeable reasons people would believe that. New Way's ministry already came out and applauded this document by saying, look, if the Church can change her teaching once, she can change it again. They are praising the document for allegedly changing the teaching. It says it's not changing.

And then saying, we're going to take this and run with it, because if we've got this much, we can get more. That was a very foreseeable reaction. And so whether it was incompetence or malice or indifference or whatever you want to ascribe, them not responding to that foreseen objection, I don't know. I don't want to assume the worst, but it's hard to paint a good picture of why would you not do more to say, you can't take this to mean this. Now, having said all that, they do say in the document

this is not a sexually okay relationship. And so give credit where it's due that they do say the opposite of what some people have interpreted them to be saying or meaning or hinting at it. Okay. What have we got here? It's frustrating says Ranger, but not surprising that folks are choosing to twist this document onto their own destruction, either towards degeneracy or Sysm. How do we help others remove their ideological lens? And we're going to have to close with that comment. I think we've got more. Golly, there's no way we can get to all of these. I just need to start reading all of them.

What do you think? Yeah. All right, let's keep going. And then you afterwards will thank you everyone. It's very kind of everyone. And what about the one above there? The green one Thursday, did I? Okay.

Is it not the case at the moment, says Pop, that Father Martin's et al have been using blessings any sinner as a loophole? Isn't the situation tighter now with this document saying you cannot bless unions? Keep it short because I want to. He said he was now able to do this publicly. He doesn't seem to be taking it as a tightening of what he was already doing privately. James Coffey says, what type of further fallout do you expect to come from this document? Also, please shout out the prodigal son, a

Franciscan household. Shout out the prodigal son. Yeah, I think the son that follows exactly what we've described. You're going to have people who say this invalidates the Catholic claim or this invalidates the Catholic teaching on this hard-ish immorality and you're gonna have people saying this proves we can do sexual immoral actions. Those are gonna be the two opposite reactions, schism and sexual immorality. Kilgore Trouse has a very important question for Joe and Matt. Where is Averna? That's a great question. Next question. Oh it's also a drink. Oh it's in the cigar line, it's at Chesterton's.

There is a duty of Catholics, says Fred, to know the guardrails set forth by previous documents. Much of what is unclear here is made clear by previous statements. The problem is so many having a platform for their emotional takes. Yeah, I do think we should be mindful of how do we interpret this in continuity. This is the whole thing about a hermeneutic of continuity versus a hermeneutic of rupture. Right. But it's just not, we can't take for granted that everyone is going to have such a mastery of the church's sexual ethic, that they'll understand how this can fit in with it. If it looks like a break, then we should do more to help. I also think, yeah, I would take issue with this. Like, it's a duty of Catholics to know the guardrails set forth by previous document. Is that really my duty? What about my

grandma who probably never read a church document in her life? What about peasants throughout history who maybe couldn't read or didn't have access to these documents? So I think be careful with your language there. Yeah, and also when you're declaring it a change, even if you're saying if you're saying it's innovative and it's a development, I think people are reading that not unreasonably as saying, okay, well the guardrails may have just moved. Carlos says, blessings for same-sex couples have already happened as a result from this document. We all know there won't be a correction. So in practice, yes, he allowed the blessings to occur. Lexarundi. Right? Pius XII has a good response to misusing Lexarundi in that way, but we don't have time.

Orthobros says, has Matt apologized to the nice young man whose hand he broke badly that it stopped growing? Alright, so let me clarify. I said that when I was a kid, I kicked a kid's hand, I was told that I shattered it such that it wouldn't grow again. Oh my. I remember that happening, but someone pointed out there's no way that that would have happened if you had have broken his bones that badly. So I did apologize to him in person.

Lyndon says, crisis now, miss, please have Father Jason on to discuss this topic. All right, we might. Okay, God bless everybody. Thank you for being here. Would you please do me a favor? Click subscribe. And the bell button. We really want to boost those subscriptions. If you think that the content we put out here is helpful to people,

and maybe you think some of the time it is some of the time it isn't, if you don't think it's worth a subscribe, don't subscribe. But if you do, I beg you click subscribe and that bell button. Thank you so much for being here, Joe. Where can they find you real quick? Shameless Popery. You can also go to Catholic.com. That was real quick? Shameless Poperty, you can also go to Catholic.com. That was real quick.