The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the Declaration Fiducia supplicans (FS), which says it’s possible to give “non-liturgical blessings” to people in “irregular relationships” (divorced and remarried, living together, same-sex “couples”), on December 18, 2023.  The very next day, a photograph of Fr. James Martin, S.J. blessing a same-sex “couple,” who had been civilly married some time earlier, appeared in the New York Times, though the document had warned against that kind of public attention. Ten days later, Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie, who “identifies as Catholic” and was once a stout defender of marriage, cited FS for his shift to supporting same-sex marriage, saying “even the Church is changing.”

You would have to be very dense or very naïve to be surprised. Many of us predicted that this would be the result. And – only two weeks into the aftermath of this ill-conceived effort – things are just getting started.

It’s no surprise when political hacks or renegade clergy do whatever it is they’re inclined to do. But it’s the nature of things in an Internet age that their personal defections will have a much wider snowball effect, aided and abetted by anti-Catholic forces.

The tsunami of controversy after the publication of the Declaration mostly revolved around whether FS allowed blessings of “same-sex unions” (which it does not) or same-sex “couples” (which it does, Intro, paras 2, 31, 41). Some defenders of the document tried to claim the blessings were for “individuals” – mentioned once (para. 38), but that is not really the thrust of the whole text.

Still, to be fair, the defenders had a point. It was just not the whole, or the most important point.

The world – including a large part of the Catholic world – understood the true significance of this ecclesial hairsplitting. Starting with the question why, if this was not a step towards accepting homosexual relationships, it was necessary to publish such a document at all?

Non-liturgical, “spontaneous” blessings (paras 21, 28, 35, 38) are and have always been available to everyone. Even non-Catholics. Even those living in “irregular” relationships – an obvious euphemism employed not to have to use that touchy Christian word: sin.

What is newly being blessed then by this “development” in the idea of blessings? The bloody pileup over that question was another of the first-fruits of a controversy that did not have to be.

And as many of us could see at the start – and, therefore, were often accused of not having even read the text – though the document was technically not heretical and even restated Church teaching about real marriage, there was a wide chasm between what was explicitly said and what was implicitly communicated.

It’s telling that the parts of the Church – e.g., the German bishops who have been planning not only same-sex blessings but even more radical steps via their ongoing Synodale Weg – have been happy with FS. This despite the fact that it reaffirms real marriage and might be read as intended to curtail their plans for formal, liturgical blessings for “irregular” relationships. It’s clear that they and others like them know that this indicates the tide’s flowing in their direction, whatever obstacles may temporarily remain.

There are, for instance, words in the document saying: be careful not to create confusion or scandal (paras 30, 39). But the reality is that the whole exercise has resulted in precisely what it says shouldn’t happen. When the bishops of Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, and many more (including several Protestant bodies) openly declare their refusal to follow the DDC Declaration – precisely because it would create confusion and scandal among the faithful – the real-world effect of those words – whatever the intention – is the opposite of what’s being said.

Which raises another question. Given that a formal document on this subject really wasn’t necessary, if all you wanted was to bless two “individuals” in some kind of “relationship,” or even the “positive” elements in an irregular “couple,” did no one in the Vatican realize that this fiasco was inevitable?

If they did not, it speaks to an incompetence that wouldn’t be tolerated in any other organization.

If they did, it indicates a willfulness to advance an agenda, and consequences be damned.

Someone once said, “by their fruits you will know them.” He may, admittedly, have been sometimes a little rigid.

It’s not hard to see that this is the kind of confusion, ambiguity, controversy that has cropped up multiple times in Pope Francis’s papacy. And from a common source: to put the best face on it, it’s a kind of sentimental desire on his part to be close to people, but without giving serious consideration to other consequences of his actions – particularly given the office he occupies.

One of the most unintentionally humorous lines ever to appear in a papal document comes near the end of FS: “What has been said in this Declaration regarding the blessings of same-sex couples is sufficient to guide the prudent and fatherly discernment of ordained ministers in this regard. Thus, beyond the guidance provided above, no further responses should be expected about possible ways to regulate details or practicalities regarding blessings of this type.” (41, emphasis added)

Since the document appeared, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández (its author) had to give an interview with The Pillar, claiming that the Declaration “does not  validate or justify anything.” And how could anyone have possibly gotten that impression, since “For those who read the text serenely and without ideological prejudices, it is clear that there is no change in the doctrine on marriage and on the objective valuation of sexual acts outside the only [kind of] marriage which exists. . .”

Further, “we are currently discussing these issues with presidents of bishops’ conferences and with groups of bishops visiting the dicastery. Soon, a group of dicastery prefects will begin a journey of conversion and deepening with the German bishops and we will make all the necessary clarifications.”

Ah, yes, clarifications. For a “sufficient. . .guide,” that “is clear,” and represents “no change.”

And its fruits?