On the return flight to Rome from his Africa trip, Pope Leo XIV spoke with journalists. He was asked by a reporter from German Radio how he would assess the decision of Cardinal Reinhard Marx, Archbishop of Munich and Freising, to permit same-sex blessings. He offered the following response:
“First of all, I think it’s very important to understand that the unity or division of the Church should not revolve around sexual matters. We tend to think that, when the Church is talking about morality, that the only issue of morality is sexual, and in reality, I believe there are much greater and more important issues, such as justice, the equality and freedom of men and women, and freedom of religion, that would all take priority before that particular issue.
The Holy See has already spoken to the German bishops. The Holy See has made it clear that we do not agree with the formalized blessing of couples, in this case homosexual couples, as you ask, or couples in irregular situations, beyond what was specifically, if you will, allowed for by Pope Francis, in saying all people receive blessings when a priest gives a blessing at the end of Mass, when the Pope gives a blessing at the end of a large celebration like such we have today. There are blessings of all people.
Francis’s infamous, famous, well-known expression of “tutti, tutti, tutti” is an expression of the Church’s belief that all are welcome, all are invited. All are invited to follow Jesus, and all are invited to look for conversion in their lives.
To go beyond that, today, I think that the topic can cause more disunity than unity, and that we should look for ways to build our unity upon Jesus Christ and what Jesus Christ teaches.
Upon hearing the pope’s response, I found it notably restrained and, at points, insufficiently direct. It leaves room for proponents of Fiducia Supplicans, such as the Jesuit priest James Martin, to interpret his remarks as a form of continuity rather than correction—especially since there is no clear indication of overturning or revising the document.
A key issue is the distinction between “formalized” and “informal” blessings. The problem is not just the form, but the situation itself. Blessings should not be encouraged where there is objective sin, since even spontaneous ones can appear to affirm it. While a blessing takes effect in either case, it is only spiritually beneficial if those receiving it are in a state of grace; otherwise, it risks confusion rather than conversion.
His emphasis also appears to reflect a broader theological approach associated with Pope Francis, where sexual sins, because they arent “angelical”, are often treated as less central compared to wider social concerns like justice, equality, and religious freedom. While these are undeniably important, the framing risks sounding more political than pastoral, especially for those expecting a clearer moral and spiritual directive from the head of the Church.
To his credit, Pope Leo XIV did reaffirm the Holy See’s opposition to the German initiative to formalize blessings for couples in irregular unions. However, the response lacked a strong admonitory tone or any mention of canonical consequences for those promoting practices outside established Church teaching like Cardinal Richard Marx and James Martin.
He also seems to uphold the interpretation that the Church should not refuse blessings to individuals—even those in objectively sinful situations—so long as these are not formalized as endorsements of their unions. Yet this raises practical and theological tensions. If such blessings are meant to occur only in general or spontaneous contexts, why was there a need for Fiducia Supplicans to address these cases so specifically?
Moreover, if a couple explicitly seeks a blessing while remaining in a state contrary to Church teaching, would not the more fitting “pastoral” response be to call them to repentance—perhaps inviting them to Confession and a sincere commitment to conversion? A blessing, without that call, risks being misunderstood as affirmation rather than an invitation to transformation.
Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition speak with clarity: God condemns sexual immorality, Christ calls for interior purity, and the apostles warn that such sins, if unrepented, separate one from the Kingdom. From the laws in Leviticus, to the account of Sodom and Gomorrah, to the exhortations of St. Paul, the message is consistent—sin is real, and it has consequences.
Yet today, confusion persists among many Catholics, even at high levels. In the name of “pastoral care,” there is a growing tendency to soften, reinterpret, or appear to bless fornication that Scripture and Tradition have always regarded as sinful. Mercy risks being detached from conversion.
Authentic Catholic teaching remains unchanged: true mercy does not affirm sin; it calls the sinner to repentance and transformation. Christ forgave, yes—but He also commanded, “Go, and sin no more.”
If the Church loses clarity about sin, she risks losing clarity about salvation. Compassion must never come at the expense of truth.
Leave a Reply