Talk:Fiducia supplicans/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Are we required to follow the official translation? "Supplicating Trust" is just terrible. Supplicans means supplicating in cognate-speak, but also begging or praying. An idiomatic translation might be "prayerful confidence" or "prayerful trust". Rutsq (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I say we follow RSs, considering they have provided a translation. If "improved" translations show up, we can discuss using those. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Rutsq I agree with you. I was looking for an official translation into English, but I did not find it until the moment the article started. Igallards7 (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

For this to be a non-biased article, there has to be an inclusion of these statements. Multiple Catholic bishop conferences, even from conservative countries in Africa, are stating that this declaration does not change the Catholic doctrine of marriage, and multiple conferences have stated that these blessings are for the individuals involved. Toolioomc (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That's already in the article. Francis has stated that the declaration applies inna collective sense and has overruled the 2021 statement.

Who is a better source of Catholic teaching, if not the Pope? It's true that certain canon lawyers, theologians, and bishops gave alternative interpretations, but the meaning of the text is now clear, and there should be no controversy over it. It allows the blessing of same-sex unions. This is agreed upon by conservative and liberal sources alike. It's also the words of Pope Francis himself. Wikipedia takes account of majority and significant minority opinions. You're asking to add fringe views into the article. StardustToStardust (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

When you imply a connect not explicitly made—in this case, specifically identifying certain groups not listed—that's called original research. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Others articles have stated it in more explicit terms. It's just that Associated Press and Reuters are preferred citations if I remember correctly. StardustToStardust (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@StardustToStardust: Oh that's just a very understandable and minor misunderstanding of the verifiability policy. You're right to say Reuters and AP are generally preferred over most sources (they're really only inferior to academic coverage). However, if you cite them, you can only use the content in those sources. If you see another detail elsewhere, you can use a slightly less preferable but still reliable source to add that detail. If you find sources discussing the pope's comments on rigidity being associated with canon lawyers, theologians, and bishops, please add that source. I'm more than willing to self-rev with such a source. Clearly you were acting in good faith, but I think you may have been slightly confused on how to source that claim. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'll find new citations. StardustToStardust (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

There's an efforts by editors (who I am assuming are opposed to the efforts of Francis to change how the Church approaches LGBT topics) to do mental gymnastics, cart wheels, and large-scale "popesplaining" to make interpretations concluding that this is actually no significant development at all, despite massive evidence against this.

It reminds me of the joke of the man caught in adultery by his wife. Who states:

"Who do you believe? Me? Or your own lying eyes?"

At some point the obvious is obvious. (Coming from a Protestant.) StardustToStardust (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The declaration itself that it is not changing the Catholic doctrine of marriage, and if commentators, both liberal and conservative voices, are saying otherwise, that should be corrected. Toolioomc (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This is still a change in how the Church approaches LGBT topics, but it the document itself and the Vatican itself is saying that it is not changing it's views on marriage or on whether the situations themselves are sins or not.

Regardless, if we are trying to be unbiased, we cannot divulge into theological discussions on a wikipedia article that is supposed to accurately describe the position itself, and the responses from both conservative and liberal sources Toolioomc (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this a major change? Normally this is where I would insert a rhetorical response along the lines of "is the pope Catholic?" But that might not be appropriate given the subject matter at hand. So I will simply opine that arguing otherwise strains credulity. But we can only repeat what is being said in reliable sources. And there are people making that argument. Ergo we report what is being said in the sources. Right now the claims on this subject are all over the place. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Echoing AO here. There is clear evidence of no singular interpretation. The best I can see as to a consensus in RSs agree the document itself does not explicitly endorse blessing unions, but that there is a vocal number of clergy and laity accepting this as permission to bless unions. Additionally, there are conflicting formal explanations of the document being issued by episcopal conferences (those from Ghana and Nigeria look very different from some Northern European statements). I think the insistence on definitive statements outside of the phrase "it authorizes blessing same-sex and other 'irregular' couples" is not possible for now. Also, note the use of couples—there is good media consensus on this term being the most broadly acceptable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't we default to how the Associated Press, New York Times, Reuters, and authorities within the Catholic church are interpreting the document, as Wikipedia rules promote "majority" and "significant minority" interpretation. I think most Catholic documents have various interpretations. However, in this case, the overwhelmingly dominant one among reliable sources is that it applies to the unions themselves. I understand the need to be cautious. It's just that this is also in my view fostering views that are fringe. StardustToStardust (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I would take a very deep breath before assigning an interpretation to the document in wiki-voice that is not explicitly affirmed by the Holy See. Especially when a lot of prominent persons and entities are all saying or emphasizing different things. See also WP:SYNTH. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Outside of a few outliers, the predominant viewpoint among sources is that it applies to the unions itself, which is something that even conservative philosophers like Edward Feser concede. StardustToStardust (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I would be cautious about labeling members of the Catholic church as "conservative" or "liberal". For example, many Catholics have traditionally opposed abortion while also advocating things such as universal healthcare or raising the minimum wage. This needs definitely context if added. StardustToStardust (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

These are terms used in reliable sources. The LA Times source you added the other day used "conservative", for example. Please use the terminology present in sourcing and refrain from imposing what you believe might be synonymous terms (this applies to the couples/unions distinction, as well). ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Many of these "conservative" bishops support policies on subjects such as uncontrolled immigratio (of which Catholic refuge agencies play a huge part in), healthcare, and capitalism that aren't conservative. In a lot of mainstream news coverage it is also intended to make the group look bad or radical. Mindlessly using MSM coverage should be avoided.StardustToStardust (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I again encourage you to review the verifiability policy, which you again seem to misunderstand. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@StardustToStardust: please read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR, for you are in the wrong here. Veverve (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Associated Press uses "unions" to describe the document. StardustToStardust (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This tweet is exceptional, relatively speaking.. See additional coverage: AP "unions" AP "couples", PBS "couples", Reuters "couples", Miami Herald "couples". The general English-language RS generally favor "couples". German-language media (and bishops) appear to favor "unions". ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Are those two things necessarily in contradiction? StardustToStardust (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as one refers to the persons and one refers to the relationship. For example, many bishops are pointing to the blessings as directed towards the persons in their pastoral guidance. This comment from the Bishop of Lincoln is notable in directly contradicting many of the individual episcopal opinions included in the article: "A same-sex union cannot be blessed". Far from sophist, including that many bishops, episcopal conferences, and reliable sources are interpreting this document as not authorizing blessing same-sex unions is necessary according to policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Leading Catholic theologian Edward Feser has stated that it is "obvious" that the document is referring to the union itself. I don't doubt that some bishops have attempted to do mental gymnastics around this, and as a Protestant Christian I view homosexuality as a sin, but either the Catholic Church has messaging that is nothing less than horrendous or the dominant interpretation is what was intended by Francis. StardustToStardust (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but a tweet by a single expert is not sufficient to discount the opinion of literally dozens of individual bishops, episcopal conferences, and reliable sources. I highly encourage you to take AO's advice. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Then we can add a note or a few paragraphs about it.

However, Feser is not a random expert. He's considered a leading Catholic philosopher. If he states that he personally views the document as requiring the blessing of same-sex unions themselves, that it overturns the 2021 ruling, and that this is also the overwhelmingly dominant interpretation by Catholic priests and laity, while the Associated Press and Reuters are also reporting this, then we should make that viewpoint the main one in the article.

While I'm an evangelical Protestant, it would be a great misservice to downplay what is obvious to everyone outside of apologists, and I think most traditionalist Catholics would also not want to be deceived into thinking nothing has changed. It's clear that many within the Catholic Church want to change the organization's teachings on human sexuality, marriage, and anthropology in the long run.

I think many are attempting to do mental gymnastics surrounding this because of the notion that the Pope can not err. However, this declaration is not an infallible document, and previous papal members such as Pope Honorious have promoted notions that are now considered heretical.

Would you affirm this? StardustToStardust (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments like this indicate you are civily POV-pushing. As of right now, consensus on this article appears to favor "couples". I would come back with sources that aren't tweets. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Everyone has bias. With that in mind, my lean would be against this being the case, as I believe homosexual actions are a sin. But this is calling balls or strikes. StardustToStardust (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Associated Press is not the author. Jess (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any source that says differently? StardustToStardust (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to stay a billion feet away from this mess but is it even agreed upon what this document is? I've seen 200 different answers from 100 different people. Catholic leadership doesn't even seem to agree. Shouldn't we wait for a week to determine this? The article's being destroyed. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@ShirtNShoesPls: Your moving something from the lead to the Reaction section—where it already existed in the Contents section—is a pretty good example of not helping the situation. The same could be said for claiming your priest in Tennessee said something. And for your since-reverted off-topic comment about Boswell (a fellow W&M alum, but not relevant). ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but you get the point. I don't think there's much agreement what the document even is. My priest was blessing same-sex marriages. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that claim? If not, please don't dilute discussion with unreferenced claims. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe there's confusion about the contents. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Fiducia supplicans has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "couples" to "unions" at the end of the second paragraph. This is because the 2021 ruling was forbidding blessing "unions" not "couples". Otherwise it is misleading. Artmug (talk) 12:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: clear POV-pushing and WP:OR against what most RSs say. Veverve (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The lede is worded "who are not considered to be married under canon law". While this is true, I think it is also misleading. I know that most people might not appreciate the importance of the difference, but I strongly think that this should be rather worded "who are not considered to be married according to church teaching".

Canon law = the internal rules set by the church for itself, which the Pope is able to change at any time. Divine law = the law Catholics believe is given by God to humanity and unalterable by humans beings, including the Pope and bishops.

In Catholic teaching, divorcing and remarrying, as well as same-sex relations are officially taught to be forbidden by the latter, not the former. This document is saying that people who are not considered married according to divine law can also receive blessings.

By contrast, within the same teaching, people who are married outside the Catholic church (ie. at city hall) are not married according to canon law, but church teaching may consider them to be married according to divine law. Such couples have long been able to receive blessings as couples in various jurisdictions without regard to this document. Reesorville (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

This article seems to be based on a false impression that the document speaks of blessing the union. The document explicitly speaks of blessing individuals who in no way seek a legitimation of their status, but rather knowing that they are in a bad state seek God's help to overcome it. 185.113.97.187 (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Catholic archbishops in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, and many other nations have now begun to bless same-sex unions, and both supporters and critics of the declaration have stated it applies in a collective rather than individual sense, see @ShirtNShoesPls: comments on Pope Francis talk page. StardustToStardust (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The Catholic Church is not a democracy and its beliefs cannot be changed by majority opinion, common practice, or vote. This is evident throughout its official documents. Please, please, please, PLEASE make this clear somewhere in the article, which currently implies that the fact that some clergy have started doing something that's forbidden in the document means that it's acceptable practice for all Catholics. 108.210.5.163 (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The document talks about relationships between two people, not about individuals. The differentiation lies between what Catholic moral theology understands as sexual acts and affective acts. Igallards7 (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The article currently places a massively undue emphasis on traditionalist and conservative perspectives. Reliable sources are clear that the overwhelming interpretation is that the blessings refer to the same-sex unions themselves rather than the individuals within them. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Not Catholic ones. 108.210.5.163 (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Karma1998:, the 2021 document is overruled.

The approval, which Francis had hinted at earlier this year, reversed a 2021 policy by the Vatican’s doctrine office, which flat-out barred such blessings on the grounds that God “does not and cannot bless sin.”

I'm sure that this was a good faith mistake, but your edits damaged the article and were actively misleading. StardustToStardust (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a clear misreading. The 2021 document specifically addressed "when a blessing is invoked on certain human relationships by a special liturgical rite" (emphasis added). This document considers - after a lengthy discussion of blessings - non-liturgical blessings, which are quite a different matter. It expands on the narrow focus of 2021. Rutsq (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)?

So every major news organization, conservative Catholic philosophers such as Edward Feser, ex cetera is just wrong? Do you have anything that states it doesn't overturn it? StardustToStardust (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Given that it's a secular institution (as well it should be!) the AP is not a reliable source when it comes to religious interpretations and theology. The Vatican's own news sources should prevail here. 108.210.5.163 (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

We now have this:

Notably, it allows Catholic priests and deacons to perform "spontaneous blessings" of [various couples], but only so that they may "be able to fulfill [God's] will completely". (emphasis added)

This is supported by a citation to paragraph 38 of FS. I believe that "but only" misrepresents the clear meaning of 38. The relevant passage of FS reads:

In a brief prayer preceding this spontaneous blessing, the ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance—but also God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely. (emphasis added)

The sentence offers five examples of specific petitions and then adds the most general. Nothing limits the blessings to that last petition as "but only" does.

Sources I've found that use this passage quote more of the passage and make the "but only" reading impossible.^[1] And the Fernandez interview is even more explicit in presenting the variety of petitions in two groups and then the most general:^[2]

Therefore, by giving this blessing to two people who spontaneously come forward to request it, one can legitimately ask God to grant them health, peace, prosperity—the things that we all ask for and that a sinner can also ask for. At the same time, since one can think that in the daily lives of these two persons, not everything is sin, one can therefore pray for them [to receive] a spirit of dialogue, patience, mutual help. But the declaration also mentions a request for help from the Holy Spirit so that this relationship, which is often unknown to the priest, may be purified of everything that does not respond to the Gospel and the will of God, and may mature along the lines of God's plan. (emphasis added & paragraph breaks removed)

I see nothing to support the phrase "but only" at all.

I've removed: but only so that they may "be able to fulfill [God's] will completely". I imagine others will prefer an appropriate restatement that more closely reflects the source.

The citation should also be repaired, as it was quoting paragraph 38 but cites 31. Rutsq (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

A lot of the article is presently original research. If there's a diverse variety of statements then we shouldn't advocate for one view being the "true" one. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This comment from Fernández was recently moved to the "contents" section of the article. That being said, this is a reaction to the document, and not actually part of its contents. It's doubtful whether Fernández is speaking on the behalf of the Catholic Church. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: tag 4. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@ShirtNShoesPls: Fernández is largely responsible for the document's contents and is the head of the organization who issued the document. His commentary is that of an author and his comments speak directly to the contents of the document. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we have enough evidence to claim the view exclusively. Other editors also contributed. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not being claimed, but his name is the on the document—he is credited as the sole author of the introduction (see here). As it was the product consultation with a large number of people, he served editorially (see here). Do you have any evidence that suggests we shouldn't treat Fernández as a leading editor and author of this document? ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Fernández is in any case the head of the department which published the document. Veverve (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, all I'm saying is that it belongs in the reaction area, not that it should be removed. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

You're contending that a statement by an author of the document discussing said document's contents is a reaction. There is no reason to do that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

There were other authors as well. It's possible they had different interpretations of what they were signing. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@ShirtNShoesPls: Your notional other authors do not transform Fernández's comments into reactions. It seems like you want them removed from the contents section because his comments offer a definitive statement on how the document should be read, one that contradict how some readers have interpreted it. Is this the case? ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a very uncharitable assumption. Fernández has one opinion; bishops in the Belgium, French, Dutch, and German churches have others. So, no. We shouldn't be giving "definitive statements on how the document should be read". ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I started a request for comment, @Pbritti:. I don't want to keep fighting and this is going to be the only way an agreement is formed. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

There's a difference between stating what the document says (and what its author says it says) and stating the document's effects. They belong in different sections. In this case, we can rather definitively see from sourcing that the document's contents were written and intended to be read one way but interpreted several other ways. Your rationale for moving the Fernández quote changes each time your previous reasoning is challenged. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Saying that "the document's contents were written and intended" to exclude same-sex unions appears nowhere. Fernández isn't the only member of the Church. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should put the case to rest and wait a few years until academics can draw summaries and conclusions on this document? I feel it too much of a hot topic currently. Veverve (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

All I'm advocating for is forbearance. No present source claims that there has been a definite resolution to the questions raised by the document. It would be wrong for Wikipedia to claim that one side is interpreting it "properly" and another "wrongly".

I support this, @Veverve:. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Present sourcing does explicitly state a definite resolution on the contents of the document, straight from the head of the dicastery that issued it and innumerable independent sources. Refusal to acknowledge those sources in favor of the opinions of non-experts (such as your priest in Tennessee) is not supported rationale. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Bishops in the Catholic Church are non-experts? I don't see the harm of waiting; I do see the harm in making assumptions on a contentious topic. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Don't need portal links in See also and Ext links sections. A common editing fault is trying to link everything to everything else. Portal linking is often overdine. See also WP:OVERLINKING. 43.249.196.129 (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I removed the portal links from "See also". Clearly duplicates. Hope that suffices. Rutsq (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

No. They are usually in the See also section - because the are something for the reader to, get this, see also! 43.249.196.129 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PORTL. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, at WP:PORTL we learn that the Portal Bar, which we are using, does not go in the "See also" section. Quote: "The bar format is normally used for multiple portals.... This template does not belong in the "See also" section." Rutsq (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This document does not arise from questions alone, but in response to actions.

• Lamb, Christopher (23 September 2022). "Historic step by Flemish bishops shows shift in Church approach to LGBTQ Catholics". The Tablet.
• "Germany's Catholic bishops vote to approve blessings for same-sex couples". National Catholic Reporter. Associated Press. 10 March 2023.

And some squabbling:

• "Spanish bishop to Belgian bishops: The Church doesn't have authority to bless gay unions". Catholic News Agency. 23 September 2022.

Rutsq (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

There's a huge piece of background missing here, that needs to be added. There's been a long-simmering disagreement between the Vatican and the German Church regarding the blessing of same-sex unions. (The bishops have indicated they intend to do it; Francis has explicitly told them they may not.) Leading theologians including Pedro Gabriel have all expressed that FS is very likely a part of this disagreement and is primarily aimed at this particular situation. Please add some context to the background section explaining that while the document itself is universal, the circumstances that generated it definitely are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.210.5.163 (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done I'm not sure why this immediate background wasn't already included, but happy to seek consensus if there was a reason. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

While I see a strong argument for placing 'Further clarification' after the 'Reactions' based on chronological order, I feel that it breaks the reading flow. Especially given that it is 'Further clarification' and not change of position from the Pope or DDF due to the criticism. For instance, when I saw 'Further clarification' at the end of the Wikipedia page, it came across as like how News agencies report any updates they had made to a previous published article. I think the overall structure and clarity of the article can benefit from moving the move 'Further clarification' as a sub-heading under 'Contents.' If that is not acceptable, please consider renaming 'Further clarification' into something else. Wiki6995 (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, I've gone ahead and put Further clarification (now Press release) not as a subheading of Contents, but as a separate section before Reactions, and included a summary of the document. I'm happy to pursue talk-page consensus if other editors disagree, but I agree with you that it makes more sense, in our context, to discuss the press release before reactions, though I think relegating it to a subsection of Contents could also be confusing, unless the lead section more closely reflected that the article would discuss FS and the press release in tandem. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is a mess, because first it says:

"On 4 January 2024, the DDF published a press release in response to the reactions"

You can't say this without first posting reactions to the document. And another thing, an interview is not part of the content of the document, so it should go in another section.Rafaelosornio (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

We're navigating the tension between chronological ordering and thematic ordering. It is a tension, and I'm not sure it's clear-cut that we should choose chronological ordering – indeed, it seems like the current, early consensus, given edit history and above, is towards thematic ordering. @Wiki6995 points out that thematic ordering likely reads more easily. I'm inclined to agree, and would add that thematic ordering allows interested editors to incorporate any reactions to the press release to the article more easily.

The press release section currently reads that it was "[r]esponding to episcopal conferences that restricted the issuing of blessings in their dioceses". I think this explicit background information is sufficient to understand the reactions that led to the press release, alongside what can be inferred from the quoted contents of the press release. Therefore, I don't think the thematic ordering impairs readability any more than chronological ordering. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thematic ordering would be more reader-friendly than chronological ordering. More so, when we consider that the original document, responses, interviews and clarifications are discussing a very specific issue with nuanced arguments that it often includes reiteration and repetition of opinions. A chronological order might be useful for someone who have strong understanding of the specific issue discussed here, but for a encyclopedia reader it reduces reading ease and comprehensibility.

While I cannot think of better alternative to @IgnatiusofLondon's suggestion of Press release, I think we need a better heading, which include interviews, press release and other forms of clarification and explanation of the document from the DDF and those associated with the original document. For instance, I added reaction of Archbishop Oswald Gracias of Bombay under Reactions, but I founded it odd to include it under "Reaction" when it seems like he was one of advisors in formulating the original document.

I agree that the notion of separating clarification from the content and placing it before the reaction. However, it could be broadened to include different formats of clarifications from those related to original document. Wiki6995 (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

catholicvote.org, which describes itself as "America’s top Catholic Advocacy Organization", is used as a source. Did I miss something, or is this website neither neutral nor a RS? Veverve (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Good spot, and yikes. Looks like the comments were made in an interview and were only actually quoted by a deprecated source (WP:LIFESITENEWS) and Catholicvote.org. Consequently, I've removed the mention of Hilarion of Volokolamsk entirely, but if someone really cared to add it back in, his criticism is mentioned in passing (unquoted) in this reliable source. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The Associated Press article makes it clear that the 2021 document has been overturned: "The approval, which Francis had hinted at earlier this year, reversed a 2021 policy by the Vatican’s doctrine office, which flat-out barred such blessings on the grounds that God “does not and cannot bless sin.”

I'm Protestant. (So perhaps I'm missing something.) This is just seems like a cut and dry case. If the Pope overrules the bishops, theologians, and canon lawyers, it seems logical to default to his interpretation of the document over others. StardustToStardust (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The 2021 has not been overturned. The Associated Press states the 2021 policy has been reversed, and this is untrue.

On the contrary, the 2021 document and Fiducia supplicans go hand in hand. The 2021 statement reaffirms that homosexual unions cannot be blessed, while Fiducia Supplicans reaffirms that individuals, including those in homosexual unions, can be blessed.

Please see paragraph 5 of Fiducia Supplicans :

"For this reason, when it comes to blessings, the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion. Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex."

I would caution against using news outlet before the document itself. Jmpv Nau (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Catholic philosopher Edward Feser, the Associated Press, Reuters, and many others have all stated that the 2021 document is overruled.

Do you have any proof that it wasn't? StardustToStardust (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The document itself. Read paragraph 5. 2600:1006:B125:A67C:D871:8BF4:ACE4:B90 (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

If four different WP:RS say the 2021 document has been overturned (and Feser's WP:BLOG is not a RS), then I think this overturning should be mentioned. Veverve (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Given how contentious it is, I think the current wording that some think it means this is okay, because I can find plenty of RS, secular or Catholic that indicate that it isn't. Perhaps it could be amended to "many" or even "most" if absolutely thought necessary, but, given as Fernandez, the very author of the document has issued a clarification that it has not been overturned it would be irresponsible to state it as a fact. There are many more liberal Catholic news sources that attack the document for *not* overturning it. The whole idea that this overturns the 2021 ruling is horribly mistaken, from an entirely objective point of view. I would be glad to provide a multitude of sources that fall under WP:RS that give pretty much any perspective you could imagine on this. If you want to leave a request on my talk page for sources I'll provide them if you don't think this talk page should be muddied with a massive list of sources, but I'll put them here if requested.

Just to state my bias, I am a Catholic. I always try to be as unbiased as I possibly can on Wikipedia, but being transparent about unavoidable inherent bias will help the other editors make judgement calls that I might not be able to make, and I appreciate being held to an objective standard by others.

It may be relevant, but the debate on if this is actually an overturning of the 2021 ruling is a VERY (almost an understatement) controversial thing within the Catholic Church right now. It's splitting communities, parishes, and even families and marriages. It's an absolute mess of a topic right now.

I do think we ought to consider the fact that the document itself says explicitly that this is not overturned. I think as editors we have to use some judgement. I'm not calling for original research, but I am saying that we ought to take what the document itself says into consideration before making statements on what it says.

To clarify, I think the current wording is perfect. Before I got to this article, it stated as a fact that it was, objectively, an overturning of the 2021 ruling. Without intending it, that caused the article to take a side in a religious debate. I spoke with the editors who were changing my edits on their talk pages, and the current wording was reached through mutual agreement. I strongly recommend it be left alone.

I won't get into my opinions on if this was or was not an implicit overturning of the document, because that is not relevant here.

All that to say, we all really need to set aside any biases to the best of our ability if we are to actually keep this article up to Wikipedia standards.

I was the one who requested that this article be semi-protected after the consensus wording was given, and the administrators took it a step further and put a three day full protection on it with the current wording of the statement in question. Let's leave the statement in the lede as is, since editors on both extremes of how the statement should read, including the editors who wanted it gone altogether have agreed on the current wording.

I think this issue is resolved now with the current wording. I think with some time there will be more of both a media and religious consensus, let's wait for that and for the waters to still a bit before we rock the boat any further on something so religiously loaded and debated. Ysys9 (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources/significant coverage arguing that the 2021 statement wasn't overturned, it would improve the article to include those sources and extend the discussion of how FS relates to the 2021 statement, (see WP:BALANCE). Other editors have mistakenly tried to change the current wording, which is supported by the cited sources, and that is always going to be a failed approach, because it is denying what has been reliably and widely reported. We don't need to wait for a "media and religious consensus": we can report alternative points of view before any such consensus emerges, so long as we do so with care not to give undue weight. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Pope Francis's own comments from recent days should give enough clarity - see the second last paragraph here in his remarks to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2024/january/documents/20240126-plenaria-ddf.html. "when a couple approaches spontaneously to ask for them, one does not bless the union, but simply the people who have required it together. Not the union, but the people..." This clearly sets out the distinction between blessing the "union" (which is not permitted) and blessing the couple as individuals (which is only permitted in a pastoral sense in terms of their relationship with the faith, not a liturgical or formal sense). It also upholds the position in the 2021 statement which was a response "regarding the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex". This was highlighted (though perhaps not clearly enough) in Fiducia Supplicans itself, paragraph 5 https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.html.

All of which logically demonstrates that the 2021 statement is not overturned, despite earlier errant statements to the contrary by some outlets.

This distinction between unions and individuals in a couple has been covered now by several outlets https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2024-01/pope-francis-dicastery-doctrine-faith-sacraments-dignity-faith.html

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/pope-says-lgbt-blessings-are-individuals-not-approval-unions-2024-01-26/

https://cruxnow.com/news-analysis/2024/01/pope-francis-amplifies-the-raucous-debate-over-fiducia-supplicans

https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/did-pope-francis-authorize-priests-to-bless-same-sex-unions Wardmd (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Wardmd! I might be wrong, but a quick Ctrl+F found that only the latter NCR source explicitly says that the 2021 decision was not reversed. I've found a separate source online (after, I have to say, some searching), and accordingly amended the article to include these views, per WP:BALANCE. I hope this might be some way forward! If you find additional reliable sources that argue that the 2021 decision was not reversed, please add them. (@Pbritti @Veverve, as editors who have reversed unsourced attempts to change the previous wording, what do you think?)

As for your other comments, we can't superimpose our interpretations onto documents (however "logically" they might demonstrate what we think they demonstrate), but I've also added that FS describes itself as "offering new clarifications" on the 2021 responsum.

The distinction between couples and unions is, I think, already covered in the first paragraph of the Press release section. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I made some additional changes to the lede to help coincide with the consensus of the wonderful editors here, and my special thanks extends to @Pbritti, @Veverve, and @IgnatiusofLondon. Due to the persistent conflict on the talk page and in the edits since the release of the document, I have added the expert needed tag, as after multiple page lockings it would seem to be appropriate. I welcome any reversal/changes to my recent edits.

Thanks again for the help, to all of you. Ysys9 (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ysys9: With the greatest respect, this tag strikes me as misguided and unhelpful:

• Though the article has required repeated protection, especially from disruptive editing by IP addresses, its contents are now fairly stable and there is a tentative consensus on its wording and contents.
• Most of the "edit warring", at least since I started contributing to the article on 7 January, has concerned (1) the factual accuracy of the (fairly trivial) reported statement that the document was "signed" by Francis, and (2) whether the statement is considered a reversal of the 2021 DDF ruling or not. These are both questions concerning the coverage of FS, rather than technical questions that require "an expert in the Catholic Magisterium".
• I am concerned that inviting "an expert in the Catholic Magisterium" accounts to inviting someone to superimpose their own interpretations to the document beyond what has been reported in reliable sources.
• The "edit warring" on this article is not atypical of articles that attract controversy and are in current affairs. These articles require the editing community to be sensitive to the balance between opposing points of view, and to be especially punitive against unreliable sources, but they do not require "experts", especially because the item is being so widely reported in the popular press. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and for your help. You have very good points here, and I indeed added the tag a bit too hastily. I believe your most recent edit to the lede clarifies things enough that the tag for an expert needed is no longer necessary.

Thanks for all the good work! Ysys9 (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to clarify, I immediately changed it to an expert needed in Catholicism rather than Catholic Magisterium for the same reasons that you mentioned here. If you find the tag still unhelpful, I highly encourage you to remove it. You are much more experienced with editing Wikipedia than I am and I trust your judgement on this one. Feel free to do with my edits as you wish. Ysys9 (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Should the article definitely state that Fiducia supplicans excludes blessing same-sex unions? Or should it say that that there has been widely varying interpretations of the matter? And does Fernández comments belong in the "document" or "reaction" section of this article? ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Malformed RfC: These are two unrelated questions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  It's okay for an RFC to ask more than one question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Certainly, but such distinct questions–including one as complicated and loaded as the first–being asked together tends to lead to long, inconclusive responses. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I read the original document, as linked in ==External links==.  I do not claim to be any sort of expert on this subject.  I paid particular attention to words like ''union'', ''couple'', and ''blessing'', in the hope of figuring out whether the blessing is for people vs the relationship.  I begin this with the caveat that the therapy speak model of treating "you, me, and our relationship" as three separate entities is not necessarily a culture-free universal truth, so trying to separate "blessing you two people" from "blessing the relationship you two people have" might be nonsensical. That said, overall, I believe the intention is to bless the people rather than the relationship, with a single sentence in paragraph 31 being possible to interpret the other way around. I do not believe that this document indicates acceptance or affirmation of same-sex marriages or other currently unsanctioned sexual relationships.

The introduction (paragraph 2) says they received questions about "about the possibility of blessing same-sex couples". This is ambiguous, in that ''couples'' could refer to the individuals or the relationship.  However, paragraph 5 says "the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex", which sounds dispositive for the first question in this RFC, if you assume that the document is entirely about same-sex marriage (which does not align with the text of the document, though it does seem to be all that Western media cares about).

In detail:

• Paragraph 6 says that in approved marriages, the "blessing given by the ordained minister is tied directly to the specific union of a man and a woman", which would be a blessing of the relationship, and which is not intended to be available to any of the people that this document focuses on.
• Paragraph 11 indicates that they do not wish to "offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union" unless it "corresponds with God’s designs" (i.e., it is a heterosexual marriage that they approve of), at least in the context of any official liturgical activity.
• Paragraph 31 says "These forms of blessing express a supplication that...human relationships may mature and grow" and be improved. This is the closest it comes to saying blessings could be for the relationships rather than (exclusively) for the individuals who are in those relationships.
• Paragraph 38 suggests that "the ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace", without reference to their "union" or "relationship".  

More generally, I think the document does not support the view that this will lead to official acceptance of same-sex weddings; the document says things like "this Declaration remains firm on the traditional doctrine of the Church about marriage" and "the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to" the people currently rejected, e.g., same-sex couples, divorced couples, cohabiting couples, polyamorous partners, etc., whose relationships are all described as "a union that cannot be compared in any way to a marriage". Perhaps they'll be proven right in the end, but there's nothing in there that makes me think that this is much beyond an official declaration that since priests are already blessing random strangers, convicted criminals, and other persons of unproven holiness upon request, they can bless couples that are shacking up, too.

The document apparently permits a "non-ritualized" and "spontaneous" blessing for people who "do not claim a legitimation of their own status"; later it says "there is no intention to legitimize anything". It particularly prohibits blessings from being given at the same time (hour, day, week?) as the wedding, in "connection with" a wedding (perhaps including a wedding anniversary?), while wearing wedding-related clothes, or using any words or gestures associated with weddings (maybe "You may now kiss the bride"? – no example is given). The blessing need not be given in a private setting but does not appear to be permissible during official church rituals.

Another thing that struck me is that there was nothing in the document that made me think it was really specific to romantic relationships.  Nearly all of the document applies to heterosexual couples; there is very little (perhaps nothing) that is specific to same-sex couples except the assertion that they cannot bless same-sex unions.  But the idea does not seem to be restricted even to couples.  One could imagine a religious gay couple asking a priest to bless them; one could also imagine a group of siblings, or a parent and child, or a group of schoolteachers at the start of the school year making the same sort of request.  The document itself gives examples of people requesting blessings from priests if they randomly encounter them while walking down the street. Paragraph 27 talks about a "blessing that is offered to all without requiring anything", which again is not at all specific to romantic relationships, and paragraph 28 says "blessings are meant for everyone" (i.e., not merely people who are already morally perfect).

All of which makes me think: Eventually, this article needs some serious (perhaps scholarly) sources. In between now and then, it's possible for anyone to read it and cherry-pick sources that match their own POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I want to add: I think the main goal of the document is to draw a distinction between what I'll call "Blessings-with-a-big-B" and casual "blessings-with-a-small-b". The former are refused to people in disapproved relationships; the latter is open to anyone and everyone, including people in disapproved relationships. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you are saying. The document is definitely along the lines that all can come and receive blessings regardless of their status in life, and irrespective of whether they are following church teaching or not, which is not the same thing as saying that the church endorses the disobedience to its teaching.

With regard to paragraph 31, I think that comparing this with Catholic theology regarding other religions might be helpful here:

The Catholic church believes that there is goodness and truth in religions outside the Catholic church, and furthermore it will also say that whatever is good and true in those religions is also something that comes from God. This is, however, not the same thing as saying that the Catholic church believes that those religions themselves were instituted by God. So, for example, Islam teaches that human beings should honour and pray to God, and the church will support this as a good practice, but the church, however, will not agree with the idea that Muhammad was God's prophet and God sent him to institute this religion for the world to follow.

If that makes sense, then thinking about human relationships -> a same-sex couple may be kind to one another, support one another, help each other, forgive each other, etc. and all these things may be good things - they are things that all human beings ought to be towards one another. A blessing upon a gay couple is then blessing these good things in their relationship. But that is not the same thing as then saying that the relationship itself, where these things are occurring, is the plan that God has for them to follow. Reesorville (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• For the first two questions, I don't see that they're incompatible. The question should rather be whether the statements are true and supported by reliable sources. If so, we should include them, perhaps something along the lines of "While FS excludes blessing same-sex unions,[source] some/many have interpreted it to mean ... [source]". Likewise for whether or not it actually reverses the 2021 responsa (though this RfC did not ask about that).

As for Cardinal Fernández's comments, there seems to be some confusion over the role of authorship in this document. The question appears to come from a point of view that sees this document as somewhat akin to one like the Manhattan Declaration, which was written by multiple authors who don't have authority over each other, and where no single author can be reasonably construed as the author or final arbiter on the meaning of the document. The comments of individual authors would have some weight, but no final authority.

But Fiducia supplicans is more along the lines of papal documents. Pope Francis did not sit down and write, e.g., Evangelii gaudium himself, but had a ghostwriter (coincidentally, Cardinal Fernández). But regardless of who actually penned the words, Pope Francis published the document under his own name and authority, taking responsibility for its contents. The ghostwriter's interpretation is ultimately irrelevant, because the document only has authority insofar as it is approved by Pope Francis; what he intended it to mean when he put his name to it is what it means. And indeed, Cardinal Fernández gets a brief, one sentence mention in our article on the document, while sources discuss what the pope meant, or what the pope remarked, not what Cardinal Fernández intended it to mean.

In the same way, even if there are other authors besides Cardinal Fernández (which, as far as I know, has not been established by a reliable source), even if Cardinal Fernández played no part in the actual composition of the document and the real writers intended the document to be interpreted differently, the fact that Cardinal Fernández published it under his name in his capacity as Cardinal Prefect of the DDF effectively makes him the author and legitimate interpreter of the text. If he had not taken responsibility for the document and published it in his name, it would have no authority. The only other interpretation that would matter in this case is that of Pope Francis, whose approval was also necessary and who, as far as I'm aware, has not contradicted Cardinal Fernández.

TL;DR: As head of the DDF and therefore author, Cardinal Fernández's comments cannot be reasonably construed as a reaction and belong in the document section. Smdjcl (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The DDF has issued a press release clarifying Fiducia supplicans which states, The Declaration contains a proposal for short and simple pastoral blessings (neither liturgical nor ritualised) of couples in irregular situations (but not of their unions). That settles the first question, if not the whole RfC. Smdjcl (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)