This is the final part of my three-part essay on these matters. Part I discussed the resolutions proposed by the Task Force on Communion Across Difference that were considered in Louisville. Yesterday, I looked at the first step in the process to add gender-neutral marriage to the Book of Common Prayer. Today, I explore the changes to the Constitution and Canons related to liturgy and the Book of Common Prayer at the 81st General Convention in Louisville and propose some ways to think about the future.

Article X

Another major development was the passage of a second reading to revise Article X of the Constitution, which is the section that establishes the Book of Common Prayer and describes the process of revision and amendment in Resolution A072. This is a subject about which I published a long article just before Convention began in which I argued against its passage. I will not repeat that article, except to summarize the three reasons why I thought the General Convention should carefully discern whether this was the best path forward.

The first reason was that I believe the new first sentence is both very “vague and open to a range of contradictory interpretations.”

The Book of Common Prayer is understood to be those liturgical forms and other texts authorized by the General Convention in accordance with this article and the Canons of this Church.

The Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision used the term The Book of Common Prayer to refer to a physical book (as it does now) and to a collection of texts that includes the rites in the physical book but also additional rites which the General Convention gives “prayer book status.” I continue to find the idea that the phrase “The Book of Common Prayer” can refer to a physical book and to a collection that may never be printed to be something that most clergy and laity will find confusing.

The generous interpretation (and one made by those who wanted to protect the conscience of the theological minority) was to have your cake (i.e., keep the 1979 prayer book intact) and eat it too (elevating the new marriage rites to “prayer book status,” on the assumption that there would not be new prayer books printed with the new marriage rites).

But here’s the rub: the way the new marriage rites are being added to the prayer book in Resolution A116 does not simply grant these rites “prayer book status.” Instead, it specifically revises the physical book with six separate references to specific pages in the prayer book where changes are to be made or texts inserted.

The question that I asked before Convention remains: What is the substantive change brought about by this revision to Article X? I have changed my interpretation of the first sentence. I have come to think that it does not change anything that is not already there in Article X. More than half of its concern is about how to revise and amend the prayer book. The General Convention was always free to do so and this revision doesn’t make it any more possible. Does this new language “free” us from the constraints of physical books? (I must admit I am a person who feels no desire for such liberation!) If the methods by which the new marriage rites are authorized are any indication of the future, it is unclear if the “prayer book status” proposal that is untethered from physical books will have any practical or conceptual purchase on how conventions will amend or add to the prayer book.

These questions deserve more focused consideration. The Living Church Foundation is already planning to host a conference on this very question where experts can engage with these and related questions and have a chance for public conversations about them. So, watch this space.

Further amendments of Article X

But this was not the end of the story with Article X. I was a member of the Legislative Committee on Constitution and Canons and it was our committee that discussed Resolution A072. Many shared some of my concerns and expressed others. In fact, there were enough questions that the co-chair suggested that a group of us craft further proposed revisions to Article X. This resolution, A224, along with Resolution B008, were debated and passed on the last afternoon at Convention and you can see the details of these debate in TLC’s coverage here. This table presents the two texts side-by-side:

This revision makes a number of clarifying changes:

• It removes two passive verbs (“is understood to be” and “is intended to be”).
• It combines the first three sentences into one sentence, removing the redundancy of “communal and devotional prayer” and “shall contain both public worship and private devotion” in the phrase.
• In addition to the defining the prayer book as “liturgical forms,” it adds the phrase “and other content,” since the prayer book contains more than just liturgical forms, such as Concerning the Services of the Church, the Calendar of the Church Year, the Psalter, and so forth.
• At the suggestion of the chancellor, the phrase “and other jurisdictions” was added in Sec. 1 and in Sec. 2 after the phrase “in all the Dioceses of this Church” simply to be more precise, since some parts of the church are not dioceses.

Memorialization

The other significant change is that it adds a new sentence to the end of Sec. 1: “Any Book of Common Prayer, or portions thereof, memorialized by the General Convention, is authorized for use at any service in all the Dioceses and other jurisdictions of this Church.” Identical language is also included in the set of additional canons created by Resolution B008.

Resolution 2018-A068 memorialized the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, in large part because of the impending addition of the new marriage rites to the prayer book and thus to assure the minority that it will continue to have access to the 1979 book as it now stands. But there are two sources of confusion with the term:

• First, memorialization remains an undefined term with no history. The first meeting of the Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision spent the entire first day of our meeting debating this, and we never came to an agreement.
• Second, once the new marriage rites are added, the revised book might still be called the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, which will then raise the question, Which version of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer is memorialized?

The insertion of this into the constitution and canons is a great service to the Episcopal Church because it clearly answers the question about what memorialization means. Resolution 2018-A068 already gives a clear sense of the intended meaning of the term: the fourth resolve memorializes the 1979 prayer book “ensuring its continued use.” This plain meaning is giving a legal expression in this sentence: “Any Book of Common Prayer, or portions thereof, memorialized by the General Convention, is authorized for use at any service in all the Dioceses and other jurisdictions of this Church.”

Changes to the Canons

Resolution B008, Amend Canon II.3.6.a and II.4 to clarify authorization of liturgies

The last signification action about liturgy at this Convention was the adoption of B008, which revised Canon II.3.6 and created a new Canon II.4.

The significant change in Canon II.3.6 was the clarification of one of the vague features of Resolution A072 that revised Article X. The new Sec. 3 in Article X introduces this sentence:

No alteration thereof or addition thereto shall be made unless it has previously been authorized for Trial Use in accordance with this Article and the Canons of this Church.

Our committee did not agree on what this sentence means. Does it mean that a text needs to be authorized for Trial Use first, and only later at some subsequent General Convention be approved for a First and then a Second Reading? Or is the authorization of something for Trial Use the same thing as the First Reading? Since the adoption of the 1979 prayer book, when revising the calendar to add new saints, the General Convention has often passed the revision as a Trial Use and it functioned as First Reading. Many of us assumed that because this is a new sentence was added to Article X, the intention is to introduction a change to the current practice. But the problem is, it’s not clear either way.

This was solved by the addition of Canon II.3.6.b, which states that any liturgy that the convention wishes to add to the prayer book the period of Trial Use must precede the first reading. In other words, three different conventions must act: Trial use + First Reading + Second Reading.

The second change enacted by this resolution was to bring an enormous degree of clarity to the texts that are authorized in addition to the prayer book. The SCLM wrote a number of years back that we as a church had been “working without a canonical net” (see more about this in my piece before the 80th General Convention). As strange as it may sound, the Constitution and Canons did not provide clear direction about authorizing texts beyond the Prayer Book and trial use. Texts like The Book of Occasional Services and Enriching our Worship were in an uneasy liturgical limbo. We took a first step at the last Convention in 2022, when a new section was added to Article X, allowing us to “Authorize for use throughout this Church, as provided by Canon, alternative and additional liturgies to supplement those provided in the Book of Common Prayer.” But as of yet, there are no such canons.

These new canons outline the four self-evident categories of texts we use:

• The Book of Common Prayer
• Trial Use rites
• Texts that are alternatives to what in the Prayer Book (like Enriching our Worship 1 and the expansive versions of the Rite II eucharistic prayers)
• And texts that supplement the Prayer Book, The Book of Occasional Services and Lesser Feasts and Fasts.

These new canons state that “Each liturgical text beyond those provided in the Book of Common Prayer or trial use as approved by the General Convention will be designated as either a Supplemental Liturgical Resource (available for use without permission of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority) or an Alternative Liturgical Resource (requiring permission of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority).”

The canons also clearly state that if a text is authorized as either Supplemental Liturgical Resource or an Alternative Liturgical Resource, this is not trial use. “If at such time as a previously approved Supplemental or Alternative Liturgical Resource authorized by act of General Convention under this canon is to be considered for trial use, said liturgy must be brought to the General Convention to begin the process for trial use approval as defined by the Constitution and Canons of this church.”

In order to make sure that all authorized rites are available to the whole church, the new canons specify that “Before their approval by the General Convention, all liturgies authorized pursuant to this canon shall be translated by the proper authorities into English, Spanish, French, and Haitian Kreyol, following the principles of dynamic equivalence.” This effectively means that all proposed liturgies need to come to the SCLM, which is the body with the authority and the resources to enable such translations.

For the first time, the canons now state that the General Convention can authorize a Book of Occasional Services and that it is a Supplemental Liturgical Resource (available for use without permission of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority). The canons also now specify that the Convention can authorize “Propers for the celebration of lesser feasts and fasts, as well as a lectionary for the daily celebration of the Holy Eucharist authorized for optional use throughout this Church.” Further, they state that “An Alternate Psalter may be authorized by resolution at the General Convention for study and occasional use in The Episcopal Church with the approval of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority.”

Three more key changes are here.

First, as I already noted, the definition of memorialization is now in the canons, the same sentence as in the proposed revision to Article X in Resolution A224. Further clarity is introduced, however, in a second sentence: “The content of any memorialized Book is understood to be the version in use at the time of memorialization.” This means that the prayer book that was memorialized by the 2018 General Convention is the 1979 prayer book as last amended in 2015 (this is because resolutions of Convention do not take effect until the first Sunday of Advent following the convention).

Second, there is now canonical permission for older prayer books to be authorized by the bishop: “The liturgies from any other Book of Common Prayer that has been authorized previously by the authority in this Church shall be available for use for Sunday worship and for other occasions with the permission of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority.” While Resolution 2000-B042 permitted “the texts of the Daily Offices and Holy Communion contained in the 1928 edition of The Book of Common Prayer [to] remain available for occasional use under the ecclesiastical authority subject to the guidelines for supplemental liturgical materials,” this now standardizes this permission, allowing for the use of any older prayer book with the bishop’s permission.

Third, the canons tighten up the use of the Rite III, “An Order for Celebrating the Holy Eucharist” on pages 400-05 of the prayer book. It specifies that any use of this order “for seasonal use on Sunday” can only occur if “it has been submitted to and received advance approval in writing from the bishop with ecclesiastical authority.”

As hard as it may be to believe, there were not canons on any of these matters before 2024. But we can be grateful for never later than never.

Conclusion

There is much to commend and even cause for rejoicing after this convention. Although the Task Force on Communion Across Difference was not renewed, legal protections for the minority were enacted:

• A protection in Canon III.1 of those who hold to a traditional view on marriage is protected in the discernment process and in “any process for the employment, licensing, calling, or deployment for any ministry, lay or ordained” enabled by Resolution A092.
• A protection of the consciences of bishops who hold a traditional understanding of marriage, which were outlined in Resolution 2018-B012, were inserted into Canons I.19.3 and III.12.3.a, as enabled by Resolution A093.
• A retention of the current marriage rite, including its traditional definition of Christian marriage as “a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God,” in the Book of Common Prayer.

These acts make it absolutely clear that the Episcopal Church has recognized that it has two teachings on marriage and has acted accordingly.

We now have a clear definition of memorialization in the canons, and maybe after 2027, in the Constitution as well: “authorized for regular use at any service in all dioceses of this Church.”

We have clarity that Trial Use must precede a first reading of any amendment or addition to the prayer book, and we have clarity about liturgies beyond the prayer book, whether they require the bishop’s permission or not. Furthermore, the presiding officers were directed to create a working group with Resolution A223, whose purpose is to “review the Canons and any questions relevant to the implementation of the revised Article X; and propose as needed legislation for consideration at the 82nd General Convention.” Presumably, this will also provide direction about texts that have already been authorized by the General Convention but have not been designated as Supplemental Liturgical Resources (available for use without permission of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority) or Alternative Liturgical Resources (requiring permission of the bishop with ecclesiastical authority). The simplest solution would be to create a single resolution that lists all these texts and assigns them to one category or the other.

What remains is for further work on the meaning of the revised Article X. The Living Church Foundation is already planning to host a conference on this very question, where experts can engage with these and related questions and have a chance for public conversations about them.

It also remains to be seen if the Episcopal Church really is committed to Communion Across Difference. Will the clarity about two teachings remain an ambiguity with which we are willing to live for the foreseeable future? The recent chaos in the Church of England about same-sex blessings in Living in Love and Faith is still another reminder about how essential it is for a careful consideration to be made for a minority, even as that position remains that of most of the Anglican Communion and the rest of the Christian world.

It is impossible to know how our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will look back on this period in the church’s life. But regardless of where we stand, it is essential that we hold in tension the seriousness of our theological commitments with a posture of true charity toward those with whom we disagree and refuse to unchurch each other, no matter how difficult this may be.

My experience in Louisville was of unexpected gifts of encouragement, charity, and real bonds in Jesus Christ, despite our substantive differences. It is my prayer that our Lord Jesus might “reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross” such that we “are no longer strangers and aliens” but “citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.”

This second part of my three-part essay on these matters begins the conversation about the first step in the process to add gender-neutral marriage to the Book of Common Prayer. Yesterday’s article explored the resolutions proposed by the Task Force on Communion Across Difference, which were considered Louisville. Tomorrow’s Part III will look at changes to the Constitution and Canons related to liturgy and the Book of Common Prayer and proposes some ways to think about the future.

Same-sex Marriage

The action that most directly concerns Communion Across Difference was the adoption of a first reading of Resolution A116, the addition of same-sex marriage rites to the prayer book. It was clear from the 80th General Convention that this would happen in Louisville, so this was no surprise. The 2027 convention will need to pass this revision on a second reading in order for it to become part of the prayer book, the same two-convention action that is required for revisions to the church’s Constitution.

But the manner of the addition raises important considerations about some of the resolutions that I just discussed and with the amendment of Article X, which I’ll discuss shortly.

The version of Resolution A116 that was proposed by the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (SCLM) was much simpler than what ultimately passed. The original version was just two sentences:

That the Rites for The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage, as authorized for trial use by the 79th General Convention, be included in the Book of Common Prayer; and be it further

Resolved, That the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, having been memorialized as the Prayer Book of this church, (2018–A068), shall remain accessible to our members and our mission.

This was revised for two reasons by the Legislative Committee on Prayer Book, Liturgy, and Music. First, the second resolve was removed for the same reason that Resolution A090 from the task force did not make it to the floor, namely, that it was deemed redundant since the 1979 prayer book is already authorized.

The second reason was that the original resolution left it unclear whether it was replacing the current marriage rite. If not, would the new rite be appended to the end of the prayer book as it now stands, or incorporated? The final version of Resolution A116 is much more specific and answers these questions definitively. The new marriages rites will be added to the prayer book in addition to the rite that is already present and will be inserted just after the current rite. A sibling resolution, A160, revises the brief section, “What is Holy Matrimony?” in the Catechism of the 1979 prayer book as follows, replacing “the woman and the man” with “two people” and then adding a second question:

There are a couple of items to note. First, this is the most surgical revision of the prayer book since 1979. The previous revisions were to add or remove persons from the Calendar or to revise the lessons in the Holy Week liturgies so that they conformed to the Revised Common Lectionary, which replaced the prayer book lectionary in 2006 (though the 2012 convention added permission to allow the use of the older lectionary with ecclesiastical permission). Here, many small revisions are made at various points and a whole new rite is added into the prayer book such that the rest of the prayer book will be repaginated (unless some other solution is found).

Second, one of the revisions that was not made was to the theological definition of marriage in the current marriage rite. This sentence remains: “Christian marriage is a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God” (1979 BCP, p. 422). Even more interesting is that the new marriages rites, now titled “The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage II,” have no parallel sentence. Thus, the catechism would articulate the teaching expressed in the second marriage rite, while the above-quoted sentence in “Concerning the Service” of the first marriage rite articulates a traditional teaching on marriage.

Two Teachings on Marriage

The language used in the resolutions authorizing the task forces on Communion Across Difference speaks of “the indispensable place that the minority who hold to this Church’s historic teaching on marriage have in our common life, whose witness our Church needs.” The word “teaching” is quite important. In many and various ways, the 81st General Convention made it clear, not only in resolutions, but for the first time in the canons and the prayer book, that this church has two teachings on marriage, which leads to:

• The protection in Canon III.1 of those who hold to a traditional view on marriage is protected in the discernment process and in “any process for the employment, licensing, calling, or deployment for any ministry, lay or ordained” enabled by Resolution A092.
• The protection of the consciences of bishops who hold a traditional understanding of marriage that were outlined in Resolution 2018-B012 inserted into Canons I.19.3 and III.12.3.a enable by Resolution A093.
• The retention of the current marriage rite, including its traditional definition of Christian marriage as “a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God,” in the Book of Common Prayer.

What this means for those who identify with the Communion Partner movement is this: the Episcopal Church has said there is a place for those who hold to the traditional teaching on marriage. Such views on marriage should play no role in discernment about ordination or deployment. Bishops with this view are required to delegate episcopal oversight for all actions related to same-sex marriage in order to protect their conscience in the exercise of their specifically episcopal ministry.

I have no doubt that this may not be enough for some who hold the traditional view — though I would say that if you are still in the Episcopal Church, this a big step toward inclusion of this minority position. This is why, in addition to some of the experiences that I recounted that were not limited to me, many who hold these traditional views “whispered to each other that they had never left a Convention feeling this heartened or this welcome” (as TLC said in its recent editorial).

Tomorrow’s Part III will look at changes to the Constitution and Canons related to liturgy and the Book of Common Prayer and propose some ways to think about the future.

This article is being published in three parts. Part I looks at the resolutions proposed by the Task Force on Communion Across Difference, which were considered by the 81st General Convention; Part II begins the conversation about the first step in the process to add gender-neutral marriage to the Book of Common Prayer; Part III looks at changes to the Constitution and Canons related to liturgy and the Book of Common Prayer and proposes some ways to think about the future.

Introduction

The 81st General Convention is Louisville may well turn out to be the beginning of a sea change in a whole host of ways. One of the most obvious of these changes was that the baton was passed to a new generation of leaders. Three of the four elected officials of the two houses are under the age of 50 — Presiding Bishop-elect, Sean Rowe, is 49; President of the House of Deputies, Julia Ayala Harris, is 43; Vice President of the House of Deputies, Steve Pankey, is 44. Many prominent leaders of the older generation who spoke to an issue in the House of Deputies found their position rejected by that House or were not elected or appointed to position of authority.

Sean Rowe was not only a full-decade younger than any of the other candidates. He was a bishop longer than each of them and could theoretically be elected to a second, nine-year term and still have five years before mandatory retirement. He was clear that, if elected, he would undertake serious changes to the church’s structure and he reiterated this in his remarks to the House of Deputies on June 28, just after his election. But in so doing, he also called for “relational jubilee in which we can let go of the resentment, anger, and grudges that have weakened our leadership in this church” and spoke repeatedly not only of Jesus, but of Jesus Christ and the gospel.

Another striking feature was the location of conflict and differences. Despite the efforts of some leaders, there are still clergy and laity in the church who maintain a traditional position on the issues de jure, and they are often associated with the Communion Partners (both in the Episcopal Church and in Canada). There were almost no floor debates between liberals and conservatives for the first time in decades. The conflicts, rather, were between those in the majority.

There were two issues around which there was a great deal of work, writing, caucusing, and floor debates: issues related to Communion Across Difference and prayer book and liturgical matters. These are topics about which The Living Church and Covenant have published a great deal and which I have committed much time, effort, and writing, including at this convention as a deputy and member of Legislative Committee #2 on Constitution and Canons.

I want to lay out what took place in Louisville, both for those who are still understandably a bit confused and for posterity, as these matters will not be going away. As we will see, these issues overlap in some important ways.

Part I: Communion Across Difference

The Communion Across Difference task forces were established first in 2018 and renewed in 2022 with equal representation by members who hold that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, as described in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, and those who support the definition established at the 2018 General Convention that marriage is a covenant between two people. (Former TLC Executive Director Christopher Wells was a member of the first task force and TLC Editor-in-Chief Mark Michael was a member of the second. Both support the traditional definition of marriage.) The purpose of this work was to foster “mutual flourishing” between supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage and to work to establish structures and practices that would make this so (see here for TLC’s coverage of the debates about Communion Across Difference in Louisville, from which this first paragraph was drawn). The task force’s work was profiled in a recent episode of The Living Church Podcast.

The task force unanimously proposed five resolutions to this Convention. The House of Bishops passed them all by wide margins, after which they came to the House of Deputies on June 27.

In what follows, I walk through each of the resolutions and describe how they were engaged by the Convention and their implications.

Resolution A090, Authorization of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer

The first resolution from the Task Force was a brief proposal to authorize the 1979 Book of Common Prayer for continued use by adding this sentence to the Canons: “The Book of Common Prayer as accepted by the General Convention of this Church in 1979 is authorized for regular use at any service in all dioceses of this Church.” This resolution, however, never made it out of committee because it was judged to be redundant, as the prayer book is already authorized. As we will see, the intended effect that this canonical addition would have enabled was accomplished in two other acts of Convention: Resolution B008 and Resolution A224.

Resolution A091, Definition of doctrine

This resolution passed nearly unanimously in the House of Bishops, but debate in the House of Deputies made it clear that the meaning and effect of the resolution was not understood. The purpose of the resolution was quite narrow and specific: to ensure that either view on the nature of marriage could never be the basis of a Title IV charge. That’s it. The resolution attempted to do this by adding this sentence to the definition of doctrine in Title IV: “For the purposes of this canon, the Book of Common Prayer and any Book of Common Prayer memorialized by General Convention are understood as sufficient statements of the doctrine of this Church.” The key phrase is “for the purposes of this canon.” There is a list of nine items from which clergy are to refrain, and the second is “holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any Doctrine contrary to that held by the Church” (Canon IV.4.1(h)1). Because the new marriage rites for same-sex couples will be added to the prayer book alongside the current marriage rites (assuming they are approved on a second reading in 2027, which is a near certainty), this change was a way of stating that the Episcopal Church has two teachings on marriage and this resolution’s intention was to specify this when it came to discipline.

Some asked whether such a protection is even necessary. But as TLC reported, a group of younger clerics from dioceses across the church who hold a traditional teaching on marriage all had Title IV charges filed against them on the same day. While the allegation was that a Discord group of which they were a part of violated Safe Church guidelines (which it did not), it was clear that the motivation of the charges was their view on marriage.

When it came time to debate the resolution, as TLC also reported, there were only a few deputies who testified for and against the proposal (all seemingly in support of same-sex marriage), after which there was a call for a vote by orders. It was narrowly defeated in both orders.

I was disappointed that the Deputies did not pass this protection, but there are a few mitigating factors for those who desire a protected canonical space for those who hold the minority, traditional teaching on marriage. First, the next two resolutions that did pass provide similar sorts of protections. Second, Resolution B008 and Resolution A224 both provide a definition of the term “memorialization” (a heretofore undefined term first introduced in 2018 in Resolution A068) which “authorized [the 1979 Book of Common Prayer] for regular use at any service in all dioceses of this Church.” The clear implication of this is that if a liturgy expresses a theological position, a cleric could not be in violation of the disciplinary canons for holding said position (in this case, that Christian marriage can only be between a man and a woman).

The next two resolutions were both passed by the House of Deputies but, as with the others, not without debate.

Resolution A092, Access to ordination and deployment

This resolution adds the following sections to Canon III.1:

Sec 3. No person shall be denied access to the discernment process or to any process for the employment, licensing, calling, or deployment for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of their conscientiously-held theological belief that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, or that marriage is a covenant between two people. No right to employment, licensing, ordination, call, deployment, or election is hereby established. In dioceses where the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority (or, where applicable, ecclesiastical supervision) is unable, for reasons of conscientiously-held theological belief, to ordain a person who holds one of the above-named theological beliefs, the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority (or ecclesiastical supervision) shall invite another bishop of this Church to provide access to the discernment process for ordination.

Sec. 4. No priest or deacon shall be denied licensure or canonical residence in any diocese of this Church because of their conscientiously-held theological belief that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, or that marriage is a covenant between two persons. No right to canonical residence or licensing is hereby established.

Like the resolution about doctrine, the intention was to take one’s view of marriage off the table regarding the discernment process, employment, licensing, etc. Again, there was a call for a vote by orders, but this time it was approved.

Resolution A093, Add provisions of 2018-B012 to canons

The fourth resolution from the task force enshrined in the canons (I.19.3 and III.12.3.a) a series of conscience protections for bishops who hold a traditional understanding of marriage that were outlined in Resolution 2018-B012 (see the TLC story on B012 from 2018). This was a complex and controversial resolution that was understood to be a compromise. On the one hand, it meant that a diocesan bishop could not forbid the use of same-sex rites within the diocese — the decision was in the hands of the rector. Ecclesiologically, it is important to note, this is a “presbyterian,” not “episcopalian,” approach to doctrine and order. On the other hand, it requires a diocesan bishop with reservations about same-sex marriage to delegate episcopal oversight to another bishop (this could be accomplished through DEPO, but that is not required). This resolution directs that this is to happen both in the case of parishes where there is a desire for a same-sex marriage and when episcopal consent is required for remarriage after divorce for same-sex couples. Thus, through a rather untraditional approach to episcopal authority, the bishop with a traditional view is permitted to maintain episcopal integrity by not functioning as the chief pastor for a rite that expresses a theological belief that the bishop cannot espouse.

Resolution A094, Communion Across Difference

The final resolution sought to renew the Task Force on Communion Across Difference for a third triennium, which would

seek to build on the Blue Book reports of the previous two triennia, continuing to seek a lasting path forward for mutual flourishing consistent with this Church’s polity and the 2015 “Communion across Difference” statement of the House of Bishops, affirming (1) the clear decision of General Convention that Christian marriage is a covenant open to two people of the same sex or of the opposite sex, (2) General Convention’s firm commitment to make provision for all couples asking to be married in this Church to have access to authorized liturgies; and also affirming (3) the indispensable place that the minority who hold to this Church’s historic teaching on marriage have in our common life, whose witness our Church needs.”

This sticking point was Sec. VII of the joint rules of the House of Bishops and House of Deputies, which requires a two-thirds vote in both houses to continue a task force beyond a single triennium. It seems that on this basis, the Legislative Committee on Governance and Structure recommended that the Convention Take No Further Action and placed it on the consent calendar. A group of deputies in favor of same-sex marriage but who nonetheless are deeply committed to the work of Communion Across Difference petitioned to remove the resolution from the consent calendar, which it was. Nonetheless, it was debated briefly and defeated in the House of Deputies.

While this too was disappointing, I again take consolation for a number of reasons. First, the number of people who I had never met but who came up to me during Convention to tell me that they were supportive of Communion Across Difference, that they wanted people with a traditional view on marriage in the Episcopal Church, and who were grateful for the work of The Living Church astounded me. A progressive friend who served on Constitution and Canons with me was asked by another deputy, “Why are you working with Matthew Olver?” “Because,” she replied, “in addition to being a committed Christian, he’s kind, he comes prepared, his contributions are clear and make sense, and he is concerned that our language is clear and precise. Wouldn’t you want to work with someone like that?” This kind of affection was never in short supply, and it was a gift every time.

Second, the work of Communion Across Difference does not require the General Convention. In fact, I think this is an opportunity to model the kind of reform that the Presiding Bishop-elect, Sean Rowe, has indicated are major priorities for him. “We spent years resisting the change that was forced on us, wishing things would go back to being the way they had been,” he said in his inaugural speech to the House of Deputies. “It’s time to reorient our churchwide resources — budgets and staff — to support dioceses, congregations on the ground where ministry happens. To build on what dioceses and diocesan partnerships already do better than the churchwide structure and use churchwide resources to strengthen those ministries. We must reform our structure and governance so that our essential polity, in which laypeople, clergy and bishops — all of us together — share authority, does not collapse under its own weight.”

The Living Church is already in conversations with some other key organizations and leaders to continue the work of Communion Across Difference. Not only can we continue an essential task that is necessary in these fractured times when some of our disagreements are substantive. We also can model to the church how we can do this work (a) without the bureaucracy of a task force and (b) without any strain on the national budget. Such a group can issue a Blue Book-like report, and those members who will participate in the 82nd General Convention in 2027 can, along with other friends, propose resolutions, just as task forces do.

We stand ready to model a new way forward: one that does not require us to compromise while attempting to maintain the highest degree of communion possible, and at the same time, provide a clear model to reform our structures and our spending.

Tomorrow’s essay continues the conversation and explores the first step in the process to add gender-neutral marriage to the Book of Common Prayer and the ways the General Convention made it clear that the Episcopal Church has two teachings on marriage.

Editorial

The 2024 General Convention will consider a second reading of a revision to Article X of the Constitution, which governs the establishment and revision of the Book of Common Prayer in Resolution 2024-A072.

This article picks up where my series on this topic back in 2022 left off:

• Part 1: The Book of Common Prayer in TEC’s Constitution,
• Part 2: A Summary of the Authorization of Liturgical Texts, and
• Part 3: An Explanation and an Exploration of 2022-A059

For the reasons I outline below, I am convinced that it would be very unwise for the General Convention to pass this revision to Article X and I urge the General Convention to reject it.

And it turns out I’m not alone. One friend, the inimitable Scott Gunn over at Forward Movement, in his long-standing series of blogging through all the resolutions at General Convention, also urges defeat of this revision in quite strong language: “We have a mess now with the current Title X of the constitution. I agree it needs to be amended. But this is not it. It will sow confusion.” The Liturgical Commission of the Diocese of Georgia has also published a memo urging its deputies to vote against this canonical revision.

Below, I lay out

• Where this proposal came from,
• What is in the proposal,
• Why this proposal should be rejected, and
• What we should do instead.

This article isn’t short, I know. But this is about the Book of Common Prayer and the worship of the Episcopal Church. If this is not part of what is central to our common life, I don’t know what is. And so I ask you: please, read carefully.

Background

Most of us probably don’t keep the history of specific resolutions close to hand, so I encourage you to go back and read An Explanation and an Exploration of 2022-A059 to understand the history that led to this first reading. But in case you’re pressed for time, here’s the condensed version:

It originated with a resolution proposed by the Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision on which I served and created by Resolution 2018-A068. At the end of our work the Task Force proposed Resolution 2022-A059 to the 2022 General Convention in Baltimore. Before that resolution was debated, however, a substitute resolution (2022-B011) was proposed by Bishop Lawrence Provenzano of Long Island along and other bishops and it was that resolution that was passed by the House of Bishop by a margin of just two votes. Immediately after the vote, the Presiding Bishop Michael Curry addressed the House and indicated that, in his opinion, the discussion had revealed just how significant a matter it is to consider changing how the Episcopal Church thinks about the Book of Common Prayer. He suggested that a working group be formed to craft an alternative resolution that might be able to garner much wider support amongst the bishops.

An alternative was crafted overnight, led by Bishop Andy Doyle, and it too was discussed extensively the following day by the bishops, after which it was passed almost unanimously.

This history is important to keep in mind, in part because I’ve heard folks say that this was the result of three or six years of work by the SCLM or the Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision and that we should not to scuttle years of work by group of experts.

It is important to separate completely the revision of Article X from the question about adding the new same-sex marriage rites to the Prayer Book (this change is being proposed here at the 2024 convention in Resolution 2024-A116). Some argued back in 2022 (and have continued to argue) that this revision to Article X is necessary in order for the new marriage rites to the BCP. But this is clearly not true. A revision to Article X is not necessary to add the new marriage rites to the prayer book. The current version of Article X clearly outlines the process for revising the BCP. These marriage rites were authorized for Trial Use in 2018 and they now will be considered for inclusion in the BCP by passing a First Reading of this change. This is all in accord with the Constitution. Thus, the revision to Article X must be considered on its own merits without Convention being misled that such an act is necessary to authorize the new marriage rites.  

One of the guardrails created in the Constitution and Canons is that any revision to either the Constitution or the Book of Common Prayer requires a First Reading at one General Convention and then a Second Reading at the next regularly scheduled Convention. Given how fundamental the prayer book is to the life of this Church and the ways in which the Constitution sets the parameters and key principles from which flow the canons, this guardrail guarantees that the changes to either cannot be made quickly or unadvisedly, but deliberately and soberly.

A Second Reading is also an opportunity to assess a significant action that this church is contemplating but has not yet taken. Second Readings are sometimes treated as a rubber stand, a fait accompli. But this is not only irresponsible but an abdication of the General Convention’s responsibility. Every Second Reading is the opportunity to ask: Is this proposed action what we really want to do? Are we clear what this change will accomplish? Do we still think that this action is a good idea?

What is this revision?

Consider this table with the current canons and the proposed revision in parallel:

This resolution would make four changes to Article X:

1. It introduces section divisions, making the Article easier to read and to cite.
2. It adds two sentences at the beginning:

The Book of Common Prayer is understood to be those liturgical forms and other texts authorized by the General Convention in accordance with this article and the Canons of this Church.

The Book of Common Prayer in this Church is intended to be communal and devotional prayer enriched by our church’s cultural, geographical, and linguistic contexts. The Book of Common Prayer shall contain both public worship and private devotion.

3. It adds another sentence later in the Article, proposed Sec. 3 about Trial Use:

No alteration thereof or addition thereto shall be made unless it has previously been authorized for Trial Use in accordance with this Article and the Canons of this Church.

The rest of the changes are not substantive and simply smooth out language.

The Strengths of A072

First, the division of this article into sub-sections is very helpful and makes it much easier to use and to cite. Changes such as this to the Constitution and Canons come to every Convention.

Second, the intention to further strengthen the guardrails against quick or unconsidered revision of the Book of Common Prayer by requiring a period of Trial Use before the General Convention votes on a first and second reading of a revision or addition to the BCP is welcomed and incredibly wise.

Weaknesses of A072

There are three substantive weaknesses of this approach plus two important, related issues.

First, the opening sentence is extremely vague and open to a range of contradictory interpretations.

The Book of Common Prayer is understood to be those liturgical forms and other texts authorized by the General Convention in accordance with this article and the Canons of this Church.

My first question was, “Did anyone ever wonder if this was in question? Of course Article X governs the Book of Common Prayer!”

Others have concluded that this revision would mean that any liturgical texts that have received two authorizations by the General Convention would be included in the Book of Common Prayer. But I think the latter part of the sentence — “in accordance with this article and the Canons of this Church” — means that the Convention must intentionally add rites to the BCP if they are to be included.

So then the question is this: What is the substantive change brought about by this sentence? The Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision used the term The Book of Common Prayer to refer to a physical book (as it does now) AND to a collection of texts that includes the rites in the physical book but also additional rites which the General Convention gives “Prayer Book status.” When Scott Gunn said that this change would “sow confusion,” he points to this change as “the straight-up Orwellian strangeness of calling something a book when it is, in fact, not a book.”

If this change were to pass, we would be in a situation where, when someone referred to the Book of Common Prayer, we would need to ask, “The Book or the one beyond the Book?” Scott Gunn adds, “Clergy are held accountable for teaching the doctrine of the BCP and for obeying its rubrics. How can we hold clergy accountable if it becomes murky what, exactly, is the “Book of Common Prayer”?

In sum, the first sentence is problematic because

• It’s open to at least three quite different interpretations, and
• Its intended meaning is to introduce the idea of “Prayer Book Status” where “The Book of Common Prayer” can refer to a book or a collection in the clouds, which is both misguided and deeply confusing.

Second, the language that intends to require Trial Use before a First Reading to add to or amend the prayer book could actually mean two quite different things. This is the new sentence:

No alteration thereof or addition thereto shall be made unless it has previously been authorized for Trial Use in accordance with this Article and the Canons of this Church.

Does it mean that a text needs to be authorized for Trial Use first, and only later at some subsequent General Convention be approved for a First and then a Second Reading? Or is the authorization of something for Trial Use the same thing as the First Reading?

Trial use + First Reading + Second Reading

or

Trial Use as First Reading + Second Reading?

Since the adoption of the 1979 BCP, when revising the calendar to add new saints, the General Convention has often passed the revision as a Trial Use and it functioned as First Reading. I assume that because this is a new sentence added to Article X, the intention is to introduction a change to the current practice. But the problem it: it’s not clear either way. I think it is wise to require Trial Use of any rite before we consider a First and Second reading to add it to the BCP. This can be clarified quite easily by amending the language to say:

No first reading of any alteration thereof or addition thereto shall be made unless it has been authorized for Trial Use by a prior General Convention.

Third, the first reading of this revision (2022-A059) ends with this final resolve clause:

A working group of nine members to include the Custodian of The Book of Common Prayer, some members of Committee 12 of the 80th General Convention, some members of a Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, and others as needed to review the Canons relevant to the implementation of this Article and propose revisions to the 81st General Convention.

But here’s the problem: This working group was never created and the corresponding canons were never drafted. I think that the 81st General Convention deserves to consider this Constitutional amendment alongside canonical revisions that further clarify any revision to Article X and, just as important, clearly define the process for authorizing rites beyond the Book of Common Prayer and also to clarify what sort of authority those rites have.

In the last few days, a resolution has been submitted by Bishop Andy Doyle of Texas that seeks to address these needed canonical revisions in Resolution 2024-B008. There is much in this proposal to commend and I am grateful for the substantive work and collaboration that went into this. But this does not change the fact that a direction of General Convention that directly concerns the First Reading of this revision of Article X was not followed and thus a group of liturgical and canonical experts were not able to carefully and deliberately consider all the factors involved and propose canonical changes for us to consider in Louisville.

There remain two more significant, related issues.

Memorialization of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer

Resolution 2018-A068 memorialized the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, in large part because of the impending addition of the new marriage rites to the BCP and thus to assure the minority that it will continue to have access to the 1979 BCP as it now stands. But there are two sources of confusion here:

• First, memorialization remains an undefined term. The first meeting of the Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision spent the entire first day of our meeting debating this and we never came to an agreement.
• Second, once the new marriage rites are added, the revised book will still be called the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, which will then raise the question, Which version of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer is memorialized?

There is a simple solution to this.

First, add the following sentence to Article X, after the sentence that establishes the use of the Book of Common Prayer through the church:

Any Book of Common Prayer memorialized by the General Convention is authorized for regular use at any service in all dioceses of this Church.

Second, add this sentence to the canons:

The content of any Book of Common Prayer memorialized by the General Convention is understood to be version in use at the time of the memorialization.

Liturgical Texts Beyond the Book of Common Prayer

Clarity about the level of authority of texts that General Convention has authorized beyond the BCP was precisely what motivated Bishop Provenzano’s substitute resolution at the last General Convention (2022-B011). Article X speaks of Alternative and Additional liturgies. It seems quite clear that Alternative means alternatives to rites in the BCP (such as Enriching our Worship 1 for the Office and the Eucharist) and Additional are rites that supplement the Book of Common Prayer (such as The Book of Occasional Services).

I would suggest the following friendly amendments to Bishop Doyle’s resolution:

• Replace the section about Supplemental Liturgical texts and divide it out into two sections: Alternative Liturgies and Additional Liturgies. Thus, the canons would clearly delineate four clear categories that are straightforward and self-evident:
  1. The Book of Common Prayer
  2. Trial Use Rites
  3. Alternatives to the BCP
  4. Additional texts to supplement the BCP
• Use the same language as used in Canon II for Trial Use to describe the process of authorization for both the categories of Alternative and Additional texts.
• Clarify that all alternatives to the BCP are subject to the bishop ordinary.
• Clarify that the enabling resolution for Additional liturgies must clarify if the text in question is subject to the bishop ordinary, and specially state that the General Convention has the authority to authorize a Book of Occasional Services as well as a volume of propers for the celebration of lesser feasts and fasts.
• Clarify that the content of any Book of Common Prayer memorialized by the General Convention is understood to be version in use at the time of the memorialization.

Conclusion

As the General Convention considers this question, we must remember several points:

• We have an obligation to carefully consider every second reading and make sure we are clear: Is this proposed action what we really want to do? Are we clear what this change will accomplish? Do we still think that this action is a good idea?
• A revision to Article X is not a necessary precondition to add the new marriage rites to the Book of Common Prayer. The current version of Article X clearly outlines the process by which alterations may be made or things added to the BCP. These marriage rites were authorized for Trial Use in 2018 and they now will be considered for inclusion in the BCP by passing a First Reading of this change. This is all in accord with the Constitution.
• The key new sentence in the proposed revision to Article X has two serious flaws:
  • It’s open to at least three quite different interpretations, and
  • Its intended meaning is to introduce the idea of “Prayer Book Status” in which “The Book of Common Prayer” can refer to a book or a collection in the clouds, which is both misguided and deeply confusing.
• The language that intends to require Trial Use before a First Reading to add to or amend the BCP could mean two quite different things. This must be clarified.
• The working group of experts required in the first reading of this revision (2022-A059) was never created. This means that the 81st General Convention is not able consider this Constitutional amendment alongside canonical revisions that further clarify any revision to Article X that was crafted by experts as the 80th General Convention intended.
• “Memorialization” remains an undefined term and is best clarified in Article X of the Constitution.

Some might argue that the Constitution is by nature general and vague and that it is the job of the Canons to clarify what might be unclear in the Constitution. But we must remember that the function of a constitution is to provide “a concise statement of the most basic and important of the Church’s laws,” to embody “the organic law or principle of government of an organized society,” and to articulate “those laws which are ‘constitutive’ of the nature and function of a community.”  “It lays down broad powers; details are left to the Canons.” It is important to remember that, “[l]egally, the Prayer Book and its rubrics stand on the same level of authority as does the Constitution,” and both require two successive Conventions to amend or revise (see Article X and Article XII). Both are “amendable” but “not easily amendable” (see Daniel B. Stevick, Canon Law: A Handbook [New York: The Seabury Press, 1956], pp. 97, 98, 119, 98).

It is one thing to revise the Constitution in such a way that makes possible a number of different paths in the Canons. But it is quite another thing to revise the Constitution in ways that are vague and open to conflicting interpretations at the very point that it revises the original version of the Article. We must remember that while it may seem this “slows down the process of liturgical and Prayer Book revision,” here’s the truth: there is nothing that is prevented or curtailed in the next triennium if we do not pass this revision to Article X in 2024. If we made carefull revisions and passed a new First Reading of a revision to Article X, it would mean that in 2027, the General Convention could pass a second reading of a new Article X and add the new marriage rites to the BCP.

There is no rush. Let’s make sure to get it right.

Disclosure: I am a member of Legislative Committee #2, Constitution and Canons, which considered this resolution. This editorial reflects only my opinion.

This subject is of particular importance to Anglicans, most especially because the recent developments in the Church of England bear a number of similarities to the approach of Fiducia Supplicans (for a summary of the situation in England, see the recent piece by Andrew Goddard on Covenant and a more recent update here). But the areas that this new Catholic text affects are numerous: the nature of papal teaching authority, ecumenical relations, ecclesiology, the theory of the development of doctrine, just to name a few. But that says nothing of the unofficial implications within the Catholic Church.

In this substantial essay, I begin with a close reading of the text and try to clarify what it says, what it does not say, and what it implies. Next, I focus on the term development, which is a key term that Fiducia Supplicans uses to describe the purpose of the text. Next, I consider the challenges provided by intention: the intention of those who seek such blessings, the intention of those who bestow them, and the relationship of both to the claims of Fiducia Supplicans. I conclude with some conjecture about the ecumenical sources and effects of this declaration and what things might look like in the future.

What Does Fiducia Supplicans Say?

The various teaching organs within the Magisterium of the Catholic Church can issue documents with different levels of authority. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is the curial office tasked with matters of doctrine. Fiducia Supplicans is a type of document called a “Declaration,” which is the highest level that the DDF can issue and which are extremely rare. The last one issued was 23 years ago under Pope John Paul II entitled Dominus Jesus, which centered on the uniqueness of Christ’s salvific work. Before that, one has to go back to 1980 when the CDF issued a Declaration on Euthanasia.

Since the Second Vatican Council, after which the name of the Holy Office was changed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (and then to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith by Pope Francis in June 2022), this office has only issued a total of 11 Declarations, including Fiducia Supplicans: four concern the problematic teaching of particular theologians (Hans Küng, Edward Schillebeeckx, Jacques Pohier), while the others concern weighty matters of theology (Christology, Trinitarian theology) or ethics (abortion, euthanasia). While issued by the CDF/DDF, these texts are usually issued with language that indicates that the pope has “ratified” the document, such that he is effectively a co-signer. With the case of Fiducia Supplicans, however, it indicates that the promulgation of the text came within the context of a private audience with the pope (Ex Audientia Die).

As Cardinal Fernández (the Prefect of the DDF) says in his opening to the text, “this Declaration remains firm on the traditional doctrine of the Church about marriage, not allowing any type of liturgical rite or blessing similar to a liturgical rite that can create confusion.” It is worth noting that nearly all the churches that offered same-sex blessings and then made provision for marriage between persons of the same sex did not proceed exactly like this. Even if they did not officially change their doctrine of marriage immediately, there was a reticence to affirm a traditional marriage doctrine as firmly as does Fiducia Supplicans.

The document begins with a reference to a March 15, 2021 text from the DDF, which was a response to certain questions raised by five conversative cardinals to Pope Francis (such questions posed to the Pope are called dubium, “doubts”).The answer to the question, “Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?,” is unambiguous: “Negative.”

Both this text and Fiducia Supplicans ground the doctrinal sections in a theological argument about blessings. In fact, the title of the document is “On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings.” The Catholic Church’s teaching about blessings is helpfully summarized in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), and both texts rely on the Catechism explicitly.

The form of this teaching has an interesting parallel to the approach of the Second Vatican Council in its teaching on Scripture in the document, Dei verbum. There, the Council grounds the particularity of the revelation of Scripture in the revelation of the Word of God in the person of Jesus Christ. In “Christ the Lord,” “the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see 2 Cor. 1:20; 3:13; 4:6)” (Dei verbum 7.1). Both Scripture and tradition are distinct and divinely willed expressions of that fundamental revelation:

There exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known” (Dei verbum 9).

Scripture is thus rightly called the Word of God most fundamentally because it discloses the fulness of God’s revelation in the incarnate Logos, Jesus Christ.

Analogously, Catholic teaching first grounds its conception of blessing in Trinitarian theology. All blessing derives from the fact that God is blessing to all of creation, most especially in the person of Jesus, as Ephesians 1:3 expresses: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.” The response of the human creature to this divine action is also properly described as blessing, which in this case “means adoration and surrender to his Creator in thanksgiving” (CCC 1078). Liturgically, this is given its fullest expression in the Eucharist, when members of the Church offer back to God from the gifts given to us — “which earth have given and human hands have made” — symbols of the whole creation, which God returns to us as the very Body and Blood of his Son. “From the beginning until the end of time,” the Catechism adds, “the whole of God’s work is a blessing” (CCC 1079).

When it comes to the action of the church, there are blessings that are intrinsic parts of certain Sacraments, most especially in the Eucharist and in the Sacrament of Marriage. In Catholic teaching, blessings outside the Sacraments are called “sacramentals,” which are defined as “sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the sacraments. They signify effects, particularly of a spiritual nature, which are obtained through the intercession of the Church. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions in life are rendered holy” (CCC 1667).

Non-sacramental blessings (sacramentals … yes, it’s a bit confusing!) are not all created equal. Some consecrate persons to particular holy service to God, such as “the blessing of the abbot or abbess of a monastery, the consecration of virgins, the rite of religious profession and the blessing of certain ministries of the Church (readers, acolytes, catechists, etc.).” Other blessings consecrate objects to a particular sacred task, such “the dedication or blessing of a church or an altar, the blessing of holy oils, vessels, and vestments, bells, etc., can be mentioned as examples of blessings that concern objects” (CCC 1672).

This means that there are clear criteria about what can and cannot be blessed, as the dubia makes quite clear:

In order to conform with the nature of sacramentals, when a blessing is invoked on particular human relationships, in addition to the right intention of those who participate, it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. Therefore, only those realities which are in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by the Church.

Despite what Franklin Graham said on Twitter, it seems that he and the pope and these documents all agree:

Since blessings on persons are in relationship with the sacraments, the blessing of homosexual unions cannot be considered licit. This is because they would constitute a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing invoked on the man and woman united in the sacrament of Matrimony, while in fact “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family” (response to the dubia).

Or as Fiducia Supplicans puts it, “the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.”

To summarize, these texts parse a number of distinctions between types of blessings:

• Some blessings are constitutive of particular sacraments, such as the blessing of bread and wine and their transformation into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist and the nuptial blessing in Holy Matrimony.
• Many sacramentals are blessings, and their purpose is to dispose Christians toward the sacraments and ultimately toward God himself. This includes the blessing of homes, of devotional objects like rosaries, medals, crosses, etc.
• Still a further distinction is explained in Fiducia Supplicans: there is a distinction between blessings that have been promulgated by the Church in formal liturgical texts (the most common of these being The Book of Blessings) and the response of a priest to people who ask for a blessing that is improvised or generic (e.g. “The Lord bless you and keep you”). While not as common within Anglicanism, it is normal in many Catholic contexts for a pious person when encountering a priest or bishop to ask for a blessing. The purpose of such a blessing is not exactly the same as the blessing of rosary or a pulpit. Here, as Fiducia Supplicans explains, “To seek a blessing in the Church is to acknowledge that the life of the Church springs from the womb of God’s mercy and helps us to move forward, to live better, and to respond to the Lord’s will.”

It seems that the theological point being made is that if I encounter a priest at a train station and ask him for a blessing, that blessing does not imply any sort of endorsement of my actions or my theology. Rather, it is acknowledgment that God is blessing all of his creatures and is the source of all blessing and that we are in need of all that God gives (which is everything!).

So far, none of this is new. A whole range of Catholic theologians would likely agree that this is standard Catholic teaching. In fact, one might ask why a document is needed to tell priests that they can do something that they always thought they could and should do: give a blessing when someone asks. It’s not as strange as issuing a document telling priests that, yes, they are allowed to walk, drive a car, or even ride a bicycle to the church in order to say Mass, but it’s getting close.

But is that all that Fiducia Supplicans says?

Development?

The needle that Pope Francis and the document seek to thread is to leave intact the traditional doctrine of marriage and to be able to respond to same-sex couples. He already signaled this in a September 25 response to further dubium from a group of cardinals. There he faced a question of whether the church could derogate from the principal of its traditional view of marriage by treating it “as a mere ideal, and accepting as a ‘possible good’ objectively sinful situations, such as same-sex unions, without betraying revealed doctrine.” He replied that “pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey an erroneous conception of marriage.”

Fiducia Supplicans expands this further. The introduction of the document makes a very significant claim:

The value of this document, however, is that it offers a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings, permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings, which is closely linked to a liturgical perspective. Such theological reflection, based on the pastoral vision of Pope Francis, implies a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church. This explains why this text has taken on the typology of a “Declaration” (emphasis added).

The text claims that Fiducia Supplicans makes three noteworthy claims:

1. this document constitutes a development in the pastoral theology of blessings;
2. this development goes beyond what has been said thus far by the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church; and
3. this development is based on the pastoral vision of Pope Francis.

So what are these developments?

Pope Francis in Fiducia Supplicans proposes a particular way of framing the third kind of blessing, the one in which an individual encounters a priest and requests a blessing and which the text describes in this way:

When one asks for a blessing, one is expressing a petition for God’s assistance, a plea to live better, and confidence in a Father who can help us live better. This request should, in every way, be valued, accompanied, and received with gratitude. People who come spontaneously to ask for a blessing show by this request their sincere openness to transcendence, the confidence of their hearts that they do not trust in their own strength alone, their need for God, and their desire to break out of the narrow confines of this world, enclosed in its limitations” (Fiducia Supplicans 21).

Again, it’s difficult to see how any prayerful pastor would disagree. But most pastors also have experienced cases in which things are actually much more complicated. I recall a priest describing an experience in the confessional when a penitent was seeking forgiveness for adultery. But as the person continued, it became clear that the person was going to continue the adulterous relationship. The penitent felt guilty, but had no intention of changing this behavior. This is not necessarily the same thing as a same-sex couple seeking a blessing. Rather, it reminds us that the desires people have and what they seek from God and the Church are often quite mixed and complicated and can be in substantial tension with what the Church understands itself to be doing (more on this later).

Maybe the most difficult passage to interpret is paragraph 25:

The Church, moreover, must shy away from resting its pastoral praxis on the fixed nature of certain doctrinal or disciplinary schemes, especially when they lead to “a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying.”[2] Thus, when people ask for a blessing, an exhaustive moral analysis should not be placed as a precondition for conferring it. For, those seeking a blessing should not be required to have prior moral perfection.

There are at least two important things to say about this paragraph. First, the text implies that many ways in which a priest may rely on “certain doctrinal or disciplinary schemes” will be in tension with proper “pastoral praxis” and may lead to “a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism.” This raises a question: What sort of reliance on doctrine and discipline does not lead to these deficiencies?

Second, the text seems to set pastoral praxis and doctrine (and its consequences as spelled out in canon law) as realities that may be in direct opposition to one another. In fact, it seems to imply that a proper pastoral response in this case will be in tension with “certain doctrinal or disciplinary schemes,” the very schemes laid out in the dubia response and in the earlier portions of Fiducia Supplicans. That certainly would constitute a certain kind of development that clearly goes beyond what has been said thus far by the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church. The text further suggests that “Pope Francis proposed a description of this kind of blessing that is offered to all without requiring anything” (Fiducia Supplicans 27). The meaning of that last phrase, “without requiring anything,” is particularly opaque.

The fact that this development goes beyond what has been said thus far by the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church is clear in the footnotes. Of the 31 quotations or citations, 20 are from Pope Francis (more on this below).

Section III, “Blessings of Couples in Irregular Situations and of Couples of the Same Sex,” puts a great deal of weight on the distinction between forms “fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities” and those that are spontaneous. It further suggests that when such couples seek a blessing, they are not seeking “a legitimation of their own status” but rather to “beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit.” The basic principle is that “God never turns away anyone who approaches him,” which all faithful Christians know to be true.

To call this a “development” is not a small matter. Especially in the wake of the influential Essay on the Development of Doctrine by the Anglican convert John Henry Newman, “development” in doctrine is a matter that dogmatic and systematic theologians have discussed vigorously and it has become a technical term in theology. But the difficulty is actually pinning down precisely what is the development in Fiducia Supplicans. The text simply does not say clearly what this development is.

The most uncomfortable conclusion is that the development named by Fiducia Supplicans is the claim that proper pastoral praxis (i.e., to bless same-sex couples) is in tension with the doctrine of the Catholic Church and that pastoral praxis should not be based on doctrinal or disciplinary schemes. But what presses back against this is the lengthy articulation of its traditional doctrine of marriage and the claim that the Church cannot bless same-sex unions as such. I have read through this text over and over and I have not yet uncovered how it resolves this seeming contradiction. Neither could Gerhard Ludwig Cardinal Müller, the German prelate who was the previous head of the DDF, who also concludes that Fiducia Supplicans introduces a contradiction that it never resolves.[3] In fact, he concludes with language that could not be stronger: If a priest gives a blessing to a same-sex couple in accord with Fiducia Supplicans, “he would have to give these blessings not as a priest of Christ, but as one who has rejected Christ. … Therefore, he commits a sacrilegious and blasphemous act against the Creator’s plan and against Christ’s death for us, which meant to fulfill the Creator’s plan.”

What further complicates things is that the text of Fiducia Supplicans says that the DDF will not wade into this territory further, which would seem to cut the bishops out of the process of understanding and interpreting the text within the wider context of Catholic teaching.

Regardless of whether my interpretation is correct, the practical challenges and effects that this introduces are numerous.

The Problem of Intention

The first is whether same-sex couples who seek such a blessing do not think that they are seeking God’s blessing on their relationship but instead that “all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit,” excluding all those aspects of their relationship that Catholic teaching states cannot be blessed.

One does not need to be a conservative to wonder whether couples — such as the one legally married in New York and (as reported and photographed by The New York Times) whom the well-known Jesuit priest Fr. James Martin blessed in his Jesuit community residence on Monday morning — actually accept the Catholic Church’s teaching on marriage and are seeking a blessing that would mature them in such a way that … might result in them no longer being in a same-sex relationship? When one descends from the abstract to particular people and couples, squaring this circle seems harder and harder to fathom. And this also highlights how the rites for blessinge same-sex couples (and same-sex marriage) in places like the Episcopal Church are significantly different from Fiducia Supplicans.

Not only is there a likely tension between what Fiducia Supplicans indicates that couples are seeking and what they are actually seeking. There is also a likely tension between what Fiducia Supplicans says priests are offering and what some priests intend to offer. The same New York Times article that shows Fr. Martin blessing a couple quotes another New York priest, the Rev. Joseph Juracek, pastor of the Church of St. Francis of Assisi in Midtown, as saying, “It is about darn time.” He “believes the church is finally aligning with Jesus’ teachings”: “This is what he is all about: That God is for all people.” The response of bishops in places like Austria and Belgium seems to go beyond the extremely fine distinction made in Fiducia Supplicans, while others, such as Archbishop Dražen Kutleša in Croatia, responded in a way that stays within its strictures.

Magisterial and Papal Teaching

One of the key pieces of Newman’s theory of the development of doctrine (and to any basic attempt to make sense of the unfolding and flowering of Christian teaching that assumes that rupture or novelty are problematic) is that the teaching must somehow be embedded in the original deposit of faith, akin to a plant flowering from a seed. G.K. Chesterton summarized this in his typically punchy and non-technical way: “When we say that a puppy develops into a dog, we do not mean that his growth is a gradual compromise with a cat; we mean that he becomes more doggy and not less. Development is the expansion of all the possibilities and implications of a doctrine, as there is time to distinguish them and draw them out” (St. Thomas Aquinas).

There is a double peculiarity in Fiducia Supplicans: this is an official magisterial text that is weighing in on a controverted matter and it is doing so based on one source: the current pope. What makes it rather surprising is that the text not only does not shy away from this fact but actually highlights it!

The value of this document, however, is that it offers a specific and innovative contribution to the pastoral meaning of blessings, permitting a broadening and enrichment of the classical understanding of blessings, which is closely linked to a liturgical perspective. Such theological reflection, based on the pastoral vision of Pope Francis, implies a real development from what has been said about blessings in the Magisterium and the official texts of the Church.

Of the 31 quotations or citations, 20 are from Pope Francis: three are from a Catechesis on Prayer given at a General Audience; nine are from his 2023 response to the dubium raised by the cardinals; three from his post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia; one from his Apostolic Exhortation, C’est la Confiance; four are from his Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, the text with the highest level of authority from Pope Francis quoted by the document. The papal document with the highest level of authority quoted are the apostolic exhortations; the document does not quote any of his three papal encyclicals, the most authoritative form of papal teaching( outside of the rare instance of teaching ex cathedra, which has only happened twice in history) nor does it quote any council. Of the 11 remaining quotations, five are from the introduction or the text of The Book of Blessings, one from the DDF’s response to the dubia, three from documents from the Congregation for Divine Worship, one from a document from Vatican II, and one from a sermon of Pope Benedict XVI, all of which refer to uncontroverted features of a theology of blessings.

It bears repeating: this form of authoritative text known as a Declaration is quite rare — Fiducia Supplicans is only the eleventh in 58 years; it is very rare for an authoritative text to rely so exclusively on a single theologian, particularly when that theologian is the current pope; it is even more unusual that a text that claims that it is a development in Catholic teaching quotes only one theologian (St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus) and only one other pope (Benedict XVI) — though neither of those citations have a direct bearing on the theological developments made in Fiducia Supplicans. This is all quite unusual.

Despite popular belief that the Bishop of Rome is an infallible dispenser of truth and doctrine every time he speaks, this is not what the Catholic Church teaches. Pope Benedict reminded the church of this: “The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know.”

Furthermore, this is also not how the Catholic Church has tended to make arguments, especially on contested questions and in official magisterial texts. A quick glance at the texts of Vatican II and the Catechism reveals a tendency to quote extensively from Scripture and the Church Fathers, in part because it wishes to emphasize that whatever is under consideration is not novel or innovative. In Fiducia Supplicans, the novelty is emphasized. If a document had been issued by the Pope or the Magisterium under Pope John Paul II or Benedict XVI whose footnotes were all self-quotations, this would have been enormous news and seen as a major development (and a major problem). And it would have been enormously worrisome to many, whether liberal or conversative (though for somewhat different reasons).

The methodology of Fiducia Supplicans seems to imply a view of papal teaching that many might argue is in tension with both the texts and the “spirit” of Vatican II. The tendency has been to de-emphasize monarchial papal authority in favor of the collegial activity of the Bishop of Rome within the College of Bishops and the whole people of God. There has been a real tension in Francis’ papacy between the emphasis on collegiality and synodality, on the place of the laity in general, and specifically the marginalized voices of women and the poor, and what even those on the left have described sometimes as authoritarian in the exercise of the pope’s “absolute power” and the further limiting of the authority of the diocesan bishop.

Liberal and conservative Catholics will rightly have reservations about a view of papal authority in which sermons and more official statements of a single pope (who is also the current pope) can serve as the single legitimate source for a significant theological development. This is a far cry from how the Catholic Church teaches about the infallibility of papal teaching, which is extremely circumscribed and limited.[4] Despite the quip by the nineteenth-century Anglican-turned-Catholic William George Ward (“I should like a new papal Bull every morning with my Times at breakfast”),[5] all Catholic theologians know that this is a terrible idea and not how their Church frames the ministry of the papal office. In fact, there is nothing in Catholic teaching that claims the Pope could not say erroneous things every day, even in his official capacity. It would be scandalous and problematic. But the theological claim of papal infallibility declared in the document Pastor aeternus at the First Vatican Council and confirmed at the Second Vatican Council is not that the Pope is preserved from error in anything he speaks, even when that speech is theological. Rather, this infallibility is when

the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops … in virtue of his office … as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful … confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. … his definitions … are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith. The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter” (Lumen gentium, 25.3).

The only two times this occurred is when the papal use of when in 1854 the Pope Pius IX declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary and then in 1950, when Pope Pius XII declared the dogma of the Blessed Virgin’s assumption into heaven.

Ecumenical

The desire to thread the needle so that the traditional doctrine of marriage is left intact but coupled with a more radical pastoral response is a shared desire of both Pope Francis and the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. It is well known that they have become close friends (see here and here). In fact, multiple sources have suggested that they discussed this very solution on their flight home from their joint pilgrimage for peace to South Sudan in February 2023 (for more on the pilgrimage, see the official reports here and here). Apparently, the Pope thought the approach in the Church of England — keep the traditional doctrine of marriage intact but make pastoral provision for same-sex couples — was a good idea.

If that is the case, this may be one of the most unexpected forms of Anglican-Roman Catholic ecumenism: the Church of England’s squaring-the-circle solution to a hugely vexing problem serving as the basis for the response to the same situation in the two-billion-plus member Catholic Church. The first known instance a blessing from Living in Love and Faith took place on December 17 at St John the Baptist, Felixstowe. The accompanying photograph of the rite looks just like a nuptial blessing in the rite for Holy Matrimony.

It will be fascinating to see the extent to which this moral question remains a part of the bilateral dialogues between the Catholic Church and other ecclesial bodies. I was on the national Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue that focused on the question of Ecclesiology and Moral Discernment, and this matter was a central question. What will be the effect of its relationship with bodies like the Anglican Church in North America, which was keen to enter into ecumenical dialogue, in part because of Catholicism’s public stance on same-sex marriage? Will this have any effect on the Catholic Church’s dialogues with the various Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches? Substantive answers may not be clear for decades, long after Pope Francis has been succeeded as the Bishop of Rome.

Effects

Everyone who has followed these developments in ecclesial bodies in the West knows that every ecclesial entity that now allows clergy to perform same-sex marriages started with blessings. I was present for an informal meeting of Anglican bishops from different provinces who were discussing the recent developments in the Church of England on this topic. Bishops from both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada both recounted being in meetings or synodal gatherings when same-sex blessings were being discussed and authorized. “We’re not talking about marriage. Marriage isn’t even on the table! We’re only talking about blessings.” And within a few years, the topic was … same-sex marriage. This is readily acknowledged, both by those who affirm the traditional doctrine of marriage and those with a more progressive view. “Wow! My [Episcopal] friends remember that this is how we started on the slow journey to marriage equality,” wrote a public figure in the Episcopal Church, along with a link to the article in The New York Times that announced the publication of Fiducia Supplicans.

But we must also remember that the Catholic Church is not really like any other church.

What may actually be the case is that Pope Francis is attempting an extremely difficult high-wire act. He knows that the question of same-sex marriage, and related LGBT matters, are a tremendous pastoral challenge to all Christian churches. And he knows that to not respond or to respond by doubling down on “negative” statements will not bear pastoral fruit. It may be that he thinks that some confusion is tolerable in the short term for the sake of people who stand in deep need of God, which is to say, all of us.

Most Christian churches are struggling with this question in varied ways. The Church of England is still in the throes of trying to find a solution. The Episcopal Church will consider some proposals this summer to make sure there is space for both a traditional and a progressive view of marriage. The United Methodist Church is in the midst of the largest denominational division since the Civil War on the question of same-sex marriage.

The vision of Pope Francis does not necessarily fit into the kind of systematic framework that was so natural to his processor, Pope Benedict. But it is clear that he has a deep and abiding concern that the world would know the God of the Scriptures, and Jesus Christ, whom he has sent. As we are in the Ember Days before Christmas, we pray with the rest of the Church:

Almighty God, the giver of all good gifts, in your divine providence you have appointed various orders in your Church: Give your grace, we humbly pray, to all who are called to any office and ministry for your people; and so fill them with the truth of your doctrine and clothe them with holiness of life, that they may faithfully serve before you, to the glory of your great Name and for the benefit of your holy Church; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

[1] “As with the Holy Father’s above-mentioned response to the Dubia of two Cardinals, this Declaration remains firm on the traditional doctrine of the Church about marriage, not allowing any type of liturgical rite or blessing similar to a liturgical rite that can create confusion.”

[2] The document is quoting the apostolic exhortation of Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), paragraph 94.

[3] I read the Cardinal’s essay just before mine was published. While he makes many interpretations that are similar to mine, my essay was written without consulting his.

[4] Citing both Vatican I and Vatican II, the Catechism explains: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful — who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. … the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council.”

[5] Quoted in Wilfrid Ward, William George Ward and the Catholic Revival (Gregg International Publishers, 1893), p. 14.