Pope’s new ruling on blessings for same-sex couples does not change Catholic teaching - bishop

Catholic bishop of Raphoe Alan McGuckian has rejected claims that Pope Francis’s declaration on blessing people in same-sex relationships is a change in church teaching on marriage and sexuality.

On Monday, Pope Francis published a document which set out the way in which a priest could impart a blessing to people in a same-sex relationship.

The pontiff stressed that such a blessing should not be confused with ritual or Catholic marriage, but said that in some circumstances individuals could be blessed.

The declaration re-affirmed that marriage was a lifelong sacrament between and man and a woman. However, some observers claimed the document marked a major change in Catholic teaching. The Pope’s document has also led to some Catholic bishops around the world issuing statements in opposition.

Bishop McGuckian, who like the Pope is a member of the Jesuit order, said the document was consistent with Pope Francis’s desire that the church reaches out “with mercy and love of Jesus” to everyone.

He said: “Some people are suggesting that this document heralds a change in the church’s teaching about marriage and sexuality. This is not the case.”

The Donegal church leader said Pope Francis’s document also sought to be consistent with the tradition which the Catholic church believed came from Jesus Christ. He pointed out that the Pope said no “liturgical blessing” could be given.

“What is envisaged here is an informal pastoral blessing, a prayer for divine grace to help people live their Christian lives ever more fully in line with the Gospel and to build on all that is good, true and beautiful in their lives. We are all sinners on the journey of conversion.”

Bishop McGuckian urged Catholics to read the document which, he said, contained “the tension between truth and mercy”.

“On the one hand it is a clear reaffirmation of the church’s teaching with an encouragement that nothing should be done that would lead to confusion about that. At the same time, it seeks to remind people who are living the Christian life in a less perfect way – that includes all of us – that God’s love never leaves us, while it always calls us to conversion,” Bishop McGuckian said.

Sacred Mysteries: The starwright who bursts forth like the sun

We sang at church something that does belong to Advent instead of jumping the gun with a Christmas carol. It was Creator of the stars of night, which is none other than a translation by that indefatigable Victorian, J M Neale, of a seventh-century Latin hymn.

The original, Conditor alme siderum, seems to me to have a pure simplicity rather like the starlight it contemplates. In fact the siderum of which God is the dear creator, alme conditor, was regarded as the whole visible heavens, including planets, which, the medieval mind was very well aware, followed separate paths from the stars.

The hymn was incorporated into vespers, suitably, for it speaks of the world reaching evening, meaning that creation had grown old expecting the coming of Messiah, the Christ. Then in the third stanza, the hymn daringly deploys an energetic figure from the Psalms. Psalm 19 (18 in the Vulgate numbering) says that in the heavens, God “set a tabernacle for the sun, which cometh forth as a bridegroom out of his chamber”. 

This hymn did not invent the metaphor of the Son of God arriving at Christmas like the sun. The prophet Malachi has the Lord of hosts saying: “Unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings.” (That is why Charles Wesley in Hark! The Herald Angels Sing wrote: “Hail the Sun of Righteousness! Light and life to all He brings, ris’n with healing in His wings.” He knew well enough that God incarnate as a man does not have wings, but he happily employed the Hebrew figure of speech. I understand the Hebrew word kanaph signifies wings, a corner of the earth, the edge of a garment.)

Anyway, Conditor alme siderum boldly uses the idea of a chamber to stand for the womb of the Virgin Mary, from which Christ came forth like a bridegroom. The image hardly comes over in the translation by Neale, but Dr Eleanor Parker, of Brasenose College, Oxford, a great populariser of valuable medieval texts, has written a fascinating blog taking in a translation written 800 years before his. 

A hymnal from 11th-century Canterbury puts this literal translation above each line of Latin, with the Old English beautifully written in red letters. It has Christ coming forth like “brydguma of brydbure” – bridegroom from bridal bower. (Also pleasingly, the Old English rendering of the Latin vespere mundi, “the evening of the world”, is there aefening middeard.)

Dr Parker has also blogged about a Middle English translation of the hymn, by William Herebert, a Franciscan friar and lecturer in theology at Oxford, who lived from about 1270 to 1333. He used the equivalent of our word wright (playwright, wheelwright) to translate conditor, “creator”, making the first line: “Holy wrouhte of sterres brryht”.

Something strange then befell the Latin hymn in the 17th century. Pope Urban VIII wanted hymns in the breviary to have a more classically correct clothing. In 1632 Conditor alme siderum was rewritten as Creator alme siderum. Of its 20 lines only one survived unchanged, the second, aeterna lux credentium “eternal light of believers”. 

I suppose people got used to the new version, but after the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s a Latin version based on the original text was substituted. Among its peculiarities it changed an archaic but striking use of a Greek word in Latin form to address God: agie, from hagios, “Holy One”. Sancte has the same meaning, but doesn’t stand out like some uncut gem on an ancient reliquary. 

• Opinion by Christopher Howse: The Telegraph 

The Vatican's 'trial of the century,' a Pandora's box of unintended revelations, explained

Verdicts are expected Saturday for a cardinal and nine other defendants in the most complicated financial trial in the Vatican's modern history:

a case featuring a Hollywood-worthy cast of characters, unseemly revelations about the Holy See and questions about Pope Francis ’ own role in the deals.

The trial had initially been seen as a showcase for Francis’ reforms and his willingness to crack down on alleged financial misdeeds in the Vatican, which long had a reputation as an offshore tax haven.

But after 2 1/2 years of hearings, no real smoking gun emerged to support the prosecution’s hypothesis of a grand conspiracy to defraud the pope of millions of euros (dollars) in charitable donations.

Even if some convictions are handed down, the overall impression is that the “trial of the century” turned into something of a Pandora’s box of unintended revelations about Vatican vendettas, incompetence and even ransom payments that ultimately cost the Holy See reputational harm.

WHAT WAS THE TRIAL ABOUT?

After a two-year investigation that featured unprecedented police raids in the Apostolic Palace, Vatican prosecutors in 2021 issued a 487-page indictment accusing 10 people of numerous financial crimes, including fraud, embezzlement, extortion, corruption, money laundering and abuse of office.

The main focus involved the Holy See’s 350 million euro investment in a luxury London property. Prosecutors allege brokers and Vatican monsignors fleeced the Holy See of tens of millions of euros in fees and commissions, and then extorted the Holy See for 15 million euros ($16.5 million) to cede control of the property. 

The original London investigation spawned two tangents that involved the star defendant, Cardinal Angelo Becciu, once one of Francis’ top advisers and a onetime papal contender.

Chief prosecutor Alessandro Diddi is seeking prison sentences from three to 13 years for each of the 10 defendants, as well as the confiscation of some 415 million euros ($460 million) in damages and restitution.

HOW DOES THE CARDINAL FIT IN?

Becciu wasn’t originally under investigation in the London deal since he had been transferred from the Vatican secretariat of state to the saint-making office before the key London transactions occurred.

But he became enmeshed after prosecutors began looking into other deals, including 125,000 euros in Vatican money that he sent to a diocesan charity in his native Sardinia.

Prosecutors alleged embezzlement, since the charity was run by his brother. Becciu argued that the local bishop requested the money for a bakery to employ at-risk youths, and that the money remained in the diocesan coffers. 

Becciu is also accused of paying a Sardinian woman, Cecilia Marogna, for her intelligence services. Prosecutors traced some 575,000 euros in transfers from the Vatican to her Slovenian front company.

Becciu said he thought the money was going to be used to pay a British security firm to negotiate the release of a Colombian nun who had been taken hostage by Islamic militants in Mali in 2017. Marogna, who is also on trial, denied wrongdoing.

THE MYSTERIOUS MONSIGNOR PERLASCA

No figure in the trial was as intriguing as Monsignor Alberto Perlasca, who ran the office that managed the Vatican’s sovereign wealth fund, with estimated assets of 600 million euros (around $630 million).

It was Perlasca who signed the contracts in late 2018 giving operative control of the London property to London broker Gianluigi Torzi, another defendant who is accused of then extorting the Vatican for 15 million euros to get the property back.

Because of his intimate involvement in the deal, Perlasca was initially a prime suspect. But after his first round of questioning, he fired his lawyer, changed his story and began cooperating with prosecutors.

Perlasca escaped indictment and was even allowed to be listed as an injured party, enabling him to possibly recover damages.

Only during the course of the trial did it emerge that Perlasca had been manipulated into changing his story to turn on Becciu, his former boss. 

THE MYSTERIOUS WOMEN WHO COACHED HIM

In a trial that had plenty of surreal twists, perhaps none was as jaw-dropping as when a controversial figure from the Vatican’s past emerged as having had a starring role in coaching Perlasca to change his testimony.

Public relations specialist Francesca Chaouqui had previously served on a papal commission tasked with investigating the Vatican’s murky finances.

She is known in Vatican circles for her role in the “Vatileaks” scandal of 2015-2016, when she was convicted by the same tribunal of conspiring to leak confidential Vatican documents to journalists and received a 10-month suspended sentence.

Chaouqui openly nurtured a grudge against Becciu because she blamed him for supporting her Vatileaks prosecution. She apparently saw the investigation into the London property as a chance to settle scores.

And so it emerged in late 2022, when Perlasca was being questioned on the stand, that Chaouqui had engaged in an elaborate plot with a Perlasca family friend to persuade the prelate to turn on Becciu.

“I knew that sooner or later the moment would come and I would send you this message,” Chaouqui wrote Perlasca in a text message that was entered into evidence.

“Because the Lord doesn’t allow the good to be humiliated without repair. I pardon you Perlasca, but remember, you owe me a favor.”

Diddi, the prosecutor, hasn’t said what, if any, charges are pending for anyone involved in the Perlasca testimony saga.

THE POPE’S OWN ROLE

Francis made clear early on that he strongly supported prosecutors in their investigation.

But the trial produced evidence that his involvement went far beyond mere encouragement.

Defense lawyers discovered that the pope had secretly issued four decrees during the investigation to benefit prosecutors, allowing them to conduct intercepts and detain suspects without a judge's warrant.

Lawyers cried foul, arguing such interference by an absolute monarch in a legal system where the pope exercises supreme legislative, executive and judicial power violated their clients' fundamental rights and robbed them of a fair trial.

Diddi argued the decrees served as a “guarantee” for the suspects.

In addition, witnesses testified that Francis was very much aware of key aspects of the deals in question, and in some cases explicitly authorized them:

The former head of the financial intelligence agency who is on trial said Francis explicitly asked him to help the secretariat of state negotiate the exit deal with Torzi;

Becciu testified Francis had approved spending up to 1 million euros to negotiate the nun’s freedom;

Becciu’s onetime secretary, who is on trial, said Francis was so pleased with the outcome of the Torzi negotiation that he paid for a celebratory group dinner at a fancy Roman fish restaurant.

In a religious hierarchy where obedience to superiors is a foundational element of a vocation, defense lawyers argued their underling clients merely obeyed orders from the pope on down. That included negotiating the exit strategy with Torzi, who was previously unknown to the Vatican but was brought into the deal by a friend of Francis.

“Torzi was introduced by Giuseppe Milanese, who was a friend of the pope’s, so why wouldn’t we trust him?” said Massimo Bassi, a lawyer for another of the defendants.

Milanese wasn't charged. Torzi denied wrongdoing.