Truth Unites - Pope Francis on Blessing Same-Sex Couples: A Protestant Response

Episode Date: January 15, 2024

In this video Gavin Ortlund offers a Protestant response to "Fiducia Supplicans," Pope Francis' declaration allowing for priests to bless same-sex couples. NOTE: at 00:18 I meant to say "couples," not "unions." That was a misspeak. Read the declaration here: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2023/12/18/0901/01963.html Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville. SUPPORT: Tax Deductible Support: https://truthunites.org/donate/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://truthunites.org/

Hey everybody. The background will look pretty pathetic in this one and the video quality. My camera is packed. We're about to move. We literally fly to Tennessee tomorrow morning, hence the different video quality and so forth. But I wanted to just briefly make a video on Pope Francis's declaration granting priests the right to bless same-sex unions. I commented on my community tab yesterday about this and the concern is about the confusion that it is breeding, especially as a response to the charge that the reason we Protestants have confusion is, because we lack an infallible magisterium. And just thinking about the responses, I know this is tough to talk about, trying to articulate the concern clearly and accurately here, okay? I don't talk about Pope Francis very much. Sometimes it can feel a little bit opportunistic if you're just constantly seizing upon a controversial thing he said

or something like that. Mainly, that's just not my main interest in terms of my, you know, my specialty, my interest and also my calling. little bit more just focused on like the historic big picture dogmatic differences when I'm talking about the Protestant to Roman Catholic divide. But the step that was taken yesterday was a significant step and it is worthy of comment. So just to let's just walk through this a little bit. On the one hand, it's not an ex-catheter statement, you know, there's no formal or technical contradiction here with respect to the institution of marriage. It's not talking about a liturgical blessing and so forth.

So there's, you know, we understand that. But on the other hand, there's a lot of people who downplay this and act like it's nothing. Like it's just no big deal whatsoever. Like this is just talking about, oh, you know, we can bless sinners and so forth and love all people and that kind of thing. But this is not that. It's also, I think, wrong to downplay this. It is talking about blessing same-sex couples as couples. Okay.

And the concerns here are in the realm of confusion and ambiguity, not formal contradiction or something like that. That's what my original post was about. And let me just explain why I do think this is a concern and why this is a significant action that's worthy of common, worthy of expressing concern. If you read the document itself, so in the introduction written by Cardinal Fernandez, but it has Pope Francis's approval. It explicitly casts itself with words like broadening, innovation, and development. I'll put up this paragraph. It offers itself as a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings, permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings.

And it says this implies a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official text of the church. So it's not crazy for us to take that at face. and to think of it in terms of those words. I've got lots of people in the comments just, you know, saying I'm being so disingenuous and so forth like this. And they're saying, no, there's no change whatsoever. Nothing has changed at all. Why does it say that it's a, you know, why would, why does it cast itself as a development? And just to express the concern succinctly, the concern here is not that we shouldn't love and bless all people.

The concern here is that love and blessing does require clarity about what the gospel calls from people. And I do think this document is, unfortunately, ambiguous. It's pastorally and theologically confusing for people. So in the document, it talks about the possibility of blessings for couples of the same sex, and it says that a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value, but also invokes the invocation of a blessing that dissoning. descends from God. So an invocation of a blessing that descends from God. Now, you know, I don't, I'm not trying to be uncharitable here. I do want to recognize every nuance that's in the document. I encourage

people to read it. I'll put a link to it. They can just work through the whole thing for themselves. I'm not going to read from the whole thing. You know, I'm used to, whenever I quote anything now, I'm just used to, the fact, somebody's going to say, oh, but you didn't start early enough or you didn't quote enough, so therefore you're quote mining. And it's easy to make that. charge, but people would need to advance a reason why some other portion is relevant to the portion being quoted. It's not wrong to quote just to highlight what I want to talk about. So, yes, the document talks about those receiving this blessing needing to acknowledge their need for God, but only in a general sense, not in any, not with respect to any sin involved

in being in a same-sex union. So if you want to see why this is problematic, Just imagine that even with all the qualifications, imagine something comparable were given to a couple in an adulterous relationship. To offer a blessing on someone in such a situation without clarity about the need for repentance is in the current climate, especially pastorally and theologically confusing. And those of us who have watched liberalization trends know how often ambiguity and gradualism are powerful forces along the way. You have to look at the overall effect of something. You can't just hide behind technicalities, you know? The evasiveness of the language here reminds me of when I was responding to Andy

Stanley in his sermon, where you can tell it's like, they don't just come out and say it, but you can tell they're kind of dancing around it and you're looking at the overall effect. You're kind of surprised at what it doesn't say and the clarity you expect, and then you're looking at the overall effect this will have on people. And I actually had the thought when I was thinking about this of, you know, I'm not just trying to provoke people or make people angry or hurt people. I know I have a lot of Roman Catholic viewers, and I do want to show love and goodwill, but it's not wrong for us to express our concerns about this. I actually had this thought that I'd be inconsistent to respond to Andy Stanley, but not to this because though they're not the same, they have some similarities in terms of tactic.

Just think about this. If you don't feel a concern about this document, ask this question. What is the point of this document in the first place? Why is it being cast as an innovation and what is its overall effect? There's nothing controversial about just offering blessings upon all people as individuals. So again, the question is, what is the overall net effect of this? And you can think about it like this. If this is really just no big deal in business as usual, and if Pope Francis didn't intend this to be a significant shift in the church's practice and understanding,

Why is every major news outlet reporting it like that? And then the Vatican doesn't clarify. If your words were being misinterpreted broadly on a significant issue, wouldn't you want to clarify? So I don't think it's wrong for us to be concerned here. Now, suppose you disagree with that and you say, no, this document is perfectly fine. You're just misreading it. I really, the nature of the responses I got made me think, okay, I really want to try to think this through. It could be I'm missing something.

But suppose so maybe that's true. Maybe I'm just really missing something here. Okay. Suppose you're saying this document is perfectly fine and it really is, people are in the comment saying this is a nothing burger you're making. This changes nothing. It's the exact same. You know, so forth.

Okay, fine. My point is that having an infallible magisterium does not prevent ambiguity because just look at the effect that it is happening, that it is having. So where you might say, oh, this is absolutely changing nothing, you will have people like Father James Martin saying, regarding Vatican declarations on same-sex blessings, be wary of the nothing has changed response to today's news. It's a significant change. In short, yesterday as a priest, I was forbidden to bless same-sex couples at all. Today with some limitations I can. He also talked about it as a major step forward in the church's ministry to LGBTQ people. He called it a marked shift

from the conclusion, God does not and cannot bless sin from just two years ago. And many of the things like that. Now, suppose you think he's wrong. He's just misusing this. Okay, fine. My point is, this is confusing. The lack of clarity is confusing. And so when we Protestants have this charge put against us that we have confusion and chaos because we don't have an infallible interpreter, I'm trying to point out this really falls flat when the infallible interpreter itself needs to be interpreted and the interpretations can be so broad ranging. And basically we just, Arkansas, is having this allegedly infallible magisterium doesn't have the kind of practical utility that it is purported to have. That's the nature of the concern here. And one last thing I want to say

is, look, I do actually take it to heart when people are saying you're being uncharitable. And I stop and say, okay, hold on. It's easy in the height of polemics to do that. And I'm sure I'm not perfect. I am not perfect in charity yet. But I really do try. And people who, that's why it actually hurts when people call me disingenuous. They, man, I'm really not. I'm, I'm, If I'm wrong, I'm not wrong because I'm faking it or being dishonest or something like that. But so I think about that. But I was thinking about it, I guess I need to push back in this way. It's not, when people are saying that it's uncharitable to comment on this and that kind of thing,

look, from our standpoint as Protestants, it is an act of charity and compassion to invite people to the truth. It is an act of compassion to call people to come out from under the yoke of a, a human institution claiming to be a divine institution. Okay? That's what we think the papacy is. Now, we can disagree about that. Just like in the same direction, I don't take it personally when Roman Catholics say, Gavin, you're wrong and you need to become Roman Catholic, and here's why.

I don't say that I disagree with them, but I don't think they're being uncharitable. Because from their vantage point, that is the right thing to do, and calling people to the truth, which is what they think they're doing, is not uncharitable. But we think the papacy is pretty manifestly a historical accretion. We think it doesn't have divine institution, but it claims to have divine constitution. In other words, I meant to say divine constitution. In other words, it's a human accretion. It's something that, you know, if you just look at the early church, first of all, you don't

have a single bishop of Rome for a while, and then when you do, he's nothing like the modern papacy. It's a slow growth. and if that hurts people to hear or makes people upset, that doesn't mean it's not an act of compassion and charity. Because basically, we would say it is a good thing to put your trust in that which is of divine constitution, not that which is of human constitution. And we think the papacy is of human constitution. That doesn't mean that I regard Catholics, I take a more moderate view than some Protestants, especially in the apologetic space. I think there's many tremendous Christians

within the Roman Catholic Church, but we just disagree and think you're wrong about things like the papacy. And it's a really big deal because it's like an authoritative methodological fork in the road for just how you define Christianity, like what do you have to believe as a Christian? So it's pretty foundational. You know, somebody's right and somebody's wrong. But for each side to commend their concerns and articulate their concerns, neither side is being. uncharitable in doing that. And I would say to call people to place all of their trust, all of their faith, which is basically the heart and goal of my YouTube channel, to call people to faith in Christ so that we experience assurance in the gospel, which the Holy Spirit does

that as we existentially put our faith in Christ. To call people to that action, from our vantage point is an act of compassion. It is a way to care for people and love people and commend the truth to people. And so my appeal would be, look, you know, here's my great, honestly, my honest belief. I don't know what's going to happen. But it's not inconceivable at all that there will be further liberalizing trends within Roman Catholicism. What will the next Pope do? You know, who will the next Pope be? How will things play out? I don't know for sure. But it's not at all hard to imagine that based upon how things are going. And I would say it is an act of compassion to call people to not put their faith in this system that has slowly evolved over the centuries, but rather

put their faith in the Word of God, which is absolutely infallible. That is the sort of solid foundation for Christianity that we ultimately base everything else on. And that's basically I'd give my life for that. I mean, that's why one of the reasons I have a YouTube channel is I want to commend that. I want to advocate for what I believe is right and honoring to Christ. And that's one of those things. So those are my comments on this situation. To sum up, the basic concern here, this is confusing. This is pastorally and theologically confusing. And it's not wrong to point that out. And if, you know, I can close by saying this, don't take my word for it. Just look at how it's being interpreted and look at the lack of clarification. I don't think it's a crazy concern to

look out and see the confusion and draw conclusions from that. All right, thanks for watching. If you have a concern, be specific in the concern. Don't just give generalities because that doesn't make the dialogue productive. But I hope this will help clarify my concern. And also, you know, I'll put it as an invitation. Don't live under the yoke. Like if you are walking down the road, you have 20 pounds on your back, somebody came along and said, hey, you have 20 pounds on your back.

Take it off. That would not be a lack of compassion for that person to say that. So I say to everybody who lives under the yoke of the papacy, you don't have to believe in the bodily assumption of Mary. You don't have to believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church. Those are post-apostalic accretions that are just not true. You don't have to live under that yoke, and it's not a lack of compassion to commend the truth.