Pope approves blessings for same-sex couples if they don't resemble marriage

[IcyChain]

Yes, but if the plain literal meaning of a sentence means one thing, and the context of the document tries to make it mean something else entirely, then the document is problematic. Any philosopher or theologian worth their salt would avoid this problem of poor writing and poor communication, where well-known words are being redefined on a partial basis. If we dig deeper we realize that there is a reason for the discrepancy: the document is required to mean diametrically different things at different times. It is to mean one thing for the Germans, another for the Africans.


Goring's point here is simply confused. Most words in most documents do not have well-defined theological or philosophical senses. If that were the case then the documents would be meaningless. They need to convey real information according to the literal sense of words if they are to have meaning. This is why Aquinas' theology is so robust and long-lived: because it almost always avoids using words in specialized, technical, or non-standard senses. It is the mark of a lover of truth.


When context attempts to reverse the meaning of words the document is self-contradictory. It's that simple.


Oh, rubbish. You can't just ignore all of my arguments time and time again and then talk about "the simple fact of the matter." I realize you haven't studied philosophy or theology, and perhaps you do not even understand the simple definition from Merriam-Webster that you cited, but ignoring all of the arguments and then asserting unintuitive positions is quite low.

Christmas break is over now so I will probably phase out of this thread, but I wish you luck. The document is very confusing, so I do not wish to begrudge the confusion that it is causing.

If you want to make the argument that the word "couple" signifies sexual activity because we must reason teleologically not modally and because the perfect form of a couple is a marriage, and that marriage involves sexual activity even though some married couples are not sexually active, and because Catholics use quotation marks and non-Catholics do not use quotation marks, you are perfectly welcome to it. Perhaps you should write Father Mark Goring and explain to him why he is in error here. None of that changes the plain fact that sexual activity is not a requirement for a couple. And your arugment simply assumes as true many things that you need to prove.

Also, if you think that the document is self-contradictory and could have been written better, that is perfectly fine with me as well. I agree with you that it could have been written better. But that does not mean that the document contradicts the deposit of faith, when properly understood.

As for the theory put forth by some (not you in particular) that the document was made intentinally ambigious to allow certain people license to bless sinful activity - I would just direct them to the quote from St. Catherine that I posted above.

 

[Michie]

Catholic Bishops in Africa Consult “to provide unequivocal clarity” on Fiducia Supplicans

Catholic Bishops in Africa are consulting among themselves in view of issuing a “single synodal pronouncement” on Fiducia Supplicans, the Vatican declaration on the possibility of blessing “same-sex couples” and couples in other “irregular situations”.

www.aciafrica.org

 

[chevyontheriver]

No, it is the most logical thing that has ever been written in the history of the world.

Rolling on the floor laughing. Thanks for the laugh.

Perhaps the best thing is to put the document away.

Of course. Bad document recalled for further study. They can claim it was only a first draft or something to save face.

Or at least to issue a formal clarification to address some of the objections that have been read.

Like saying none of this applies to any couple that isn't a chaste and celibate and non-sexual sort of 'couple'. Only to them. To them only.

Like I wrote before, I agree that it is bad optics for the Church.

At least you have the sense to say that, but then you ARE being critical of the pope. By the way, it's way more than optics. It's flawed. Deeply flawed. Optics is about when a good thing just looks bad.

But I'm not the pope and the decision is not mine to make.

Obviously you can't recall it for the pope. Maybe you could suggest it to him though. If he thinks you are not an American he might not trashcan your letter automatically.

I know right? Pope Francis should have gone further and restricted the use of the TLM entirely. Maybe that will come next.

Pope Francis has made some big mistakes in his time. But he did have the proper authority to do something as mean and imprudent as he did. It harmed many people. But he had that authority liturgically to upend precedent and shut down as much of the TLM as he wanted to. He can suppress the UGCC liturgy any time he wants and insist they only use the novus ordo in Spanish. If he wants to he can insist that every mass in the world be in Spanish. That would be dumb. That would be arrogant. That would be within his rights. He isn't mandating sin by doing so. We try to obey such things. When it comes to blessing homosexual unions, er couples, er non-coupled couples, whatever, he has already been taken to have meant to bless the unblessable via a newly created back door. That's a much bigger thing.

Oh, and what's next is, well, who knows. Pope Francis has an agenda in the ever shortening time before he meets his maker. If it were me I would want that meeting with my maker to go well. And I would want my personal 'magisterium' to agree with the perennial Magisterium of the Church. Not to subsume that Magisterium in favor of my own opinions.

 

[chevyontheriver]

As for the theory put forth by some (not you in particular) that the document was made intentinally ambigious to allow certain people license to bless sinful activity - I would just direct them to the quote from St. Catherine that I posted above.

Ah, yes. Agree with the pope because the pope is right and all anybody else can do is drool anyway. Even if the pope is wrong the pope is actually right. No criticism allowed. Ever.

 

[RileyG]

Amen. I could not agree more.

Not exactly. Grace precedes repentance. The sinner cannot bring himself to repentence without grace.

True

 

[Sword of the Lord]

 

[zippy2006]

None of that changes the plain fact that sexual activity is not a requirement for a couple.

Then you must believe that there is nothing wrong with same-sex couples dating or getting engaged for a civil union, since there is no sexual activity and therefore no sin in such situations.

But that does not mean that the document contradicts the deposit of faith, when properly understood.

The problem is that, given the way you interpret documents, no document could ever contradict the deposit of faith, and therefore this is not a substantial claim on your part.

Perhaps the best thing is to put the document away. Or at least to issue a formal clarification to address some of the objections that have been read.

The DDF foresaw the problems that this document would cause:

41. What has been said in this Declaration regarding the blessings of same-sex couples is sufficient to guide the prudent and fatherly discernment of ordained ministers in this regard. Thus, beyond the guidance provided above, no further responses should be expected about possible ways to regulate details or practicalities regarding blessings of this type.​

 

[IcyChain]

Then you must believe that there is nothing wrong with same-sex couples dating or getting engaged for a civil union, since there is no sexual activity and therefore no sin in such situations.

I think that is problematic. But the document does not authorize blessing that relationship. That is our point of disagreement. You interpret "blessing a couple" to mean "bless the improper relationship". I do not. We are back to square one again.

The problem is that, given the way you interpret documents, no document could ever contradict the deposit of faith, and therefore this is not a substantial claim on your part.

I try to interpret the documents in favor of continuity. I believe that there are magisterial documents that teach this principle. But if the pope issued a document that stated. "The teaching of the church is now that homosexual acts are licit" I would go join the Eastern Orthodox. I already stated that in this thread. Even I have my limits. Whether you choose to believe me is up to you.

The DDF foresaw the problems that this document would cause:

41. What has been said in this Declaration regarding the blessings of same-sex couples is sufficient to guide the prudent and fatherly discernment of ordained ministers in this regard. Thus, beyond the guidance provided above, no further responses should be expected about possible ways to regulate details or practicalities regarding blessings of this type.​

I think that the author of the document stated that he will will soon have conversations with various bishops and that clarifications will be issued.

Regardless, I think we can both have confidence that the church will eventually get things right. She has been through trials before.

For what it is worth I respect your viewpoint and I understand your concern.

 

[zippy2006]

I think that is problematic.

But why? Your position is apparently that in the absence of sexual activity, a blessing can be given; and that because "couple" says nothing about whether sexual activity is occurring, one can bless couples. So what could be wrong with a same-sex couple that is dating or engaged, and is waiting to have sex until their civil union occurs? On your non-teleological account there can be nothing wrong with this.

But if the pope issued a document that stated. "The teaching of the church is now that homosexual acts are licit" I would go join the Eastern Orthodox.

Okay, but what if the pope issued a document that said, "The teaching of the church is now that homosexual acts are licit. This does not contradict previous teaching. This is a development. We have a new and improved theology of human acts." (Because this is what would actually happen. No institution straightforwardly contradicts its weightiest tenets.)

For what it is worth I respect your viewpoint and I understand your concern.

Yes, thanks. I understand where you are coming from as well, and I am glad you are thinking through the issues.

 

[IcyChain]

But why? Your position is apparently that in the absence of sexual activity, a blessing can be given; and that because "couple" says nothing about whether sexual activity is occurring, one can bless couples. So what could be wrong with a same-sex couple that is dating or engaged, and is waiting to have sex until their civil union occurs? On your non-teleological account there can be nothing wrong with this.

That is not my position. I wrote earlier that I thought that we were talking past each other. I still suspect that this may be the case.

I could be wrong but I think you are viewing a "couple" and a "union" as fundamentally the same sort of thing. They are both types of "bonds" or "relationships". Perhaps the only difference between them being the specific requirements (whatever they are) that constitute the "union" and the "couple". When you see the phrase "blessing a couple" I think you see it as substantially the same as "blessing a union". You are blessing a relationship in either case, just different types of relationships. I think you interpret the document as using the phrase "bless a couple" in substantially the same way as the document stating "bless a union".

I am looking at the langauge in a completely different manner. Going back to my earlier hypothetical - let's say I am people-watching with my friend John. There are two couples walking down the street. Couple A and Couple B. Both Couple A and Couple B are holding hands and kissing signifying romantic connections between them. Couple A is wearing clown suits. I point in the direction of Couple A and state "Hey John, look at that couple". Here, what I want my friend John to do is to look at Couple A as opposed to Couple B. I just say "that couple" to identify the specific two people that I want John to look at. That is, my primary objective here is to get my friend John to look at "two people". I use the phrase "that couple" only for the purpose of identifying which specific "two people" that I want John to look at. If they had been a two-person chain-gang I would have said "John, look at the chain-gang". Here, it is almost irrelevant to me whether the two people are a couple or a chain-gang. I just want to identify the two people that I want John to look at. Whether the two people are a couple or a chain gang has almost no significance to the verb "look" and my objective, which is to get my friend John to look at the two people.

In the context of the document I am interpreting the phrase "blessing a same-sex couple" in a very similar way as "look at that couple" in the example above. The primary objective here is simply to bless two people. Which two people? Two people who are in a same-sex relationship. I could say "bless a same-sex couple" or I could say "bless an opposite-sex couple" but in either case what I want to do is to bless "two people". Them being "same-sex" or "opposite-sex" is tangential. The phrase is just a way to identify the specific two people who are the obejct of the blessing. That is, the object of the blessing at its core is the blessing of "two people". The object of the blessing is not intended to be the relationship, the "union" or the "coupling" at all.

So whether the "relationship" or the "coupling" involves people who are chaste or sexually active is immaterial because the object of the blessing is simply "two people" as opposed to the "relationship" or the "coupling" itself.

I suspect that this sounds ludicrous to you. I think you see the phrase "bless a couple" and intuitivley think that it must in some way or fashion refer to blessing the relationship, the bond, or the coupling of the two people, rather than merely blessing the two individual people who form the couple. You seem to think "If that were the case, if that were all that the phrase means, then there would be no reason for the bloody document in the first place". Here, as I wrote previously, I do not think the purpose of Fiducia Supplicans is to define or otherwise clarify the object of the blessing. This was done in the first document, which expliclity states that same-sex bonds cannot be the object of a blessing (not only barring same-sex "unions" but also barring the blessing of same-sex "relationhips"). Rather than clarifying the object of what can and cannot be blessed, the purpose and reason for Fiducia Supplications is to explore the nature of various blessings, to discuss which types of blessing are appropriate in different contexts, and to correct the German Bishops.

Now - what are the reasons for my conclusions above?

1) The phrase "bless a same-sex couple" appears to be used in the document in a colloquial sort of sense (as Fr. Mark Goring indicated). But specifically the blessing refers to the blessing that is described at paragraph 31 of the document:

a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who 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. These forms of blessing express a supplication that God may grant those aids that come from the impulses of his Spirit—what classical theology calls “actual grace”—so that human relationships may mature and grow in fidelity to the Gospel, that they may be freed from their imperfections and frailties, and that they may express themselves in the ever-increasing dimension of the divine love.​

2) If you look at the specific blessing that is approved by the document at paragraph 31 above - I think that it is very clear that the blessing is imparted on the two people who are in the improper relationship, rather than being imparted on the relationship, bond, the "coupling" or the union itself. The Michael Loften video on "couples" that I posted above goes through this point in great detail if you have not watched it. My interpretation is substantially the same as his.

3) As you mentioned earlier in the thread, the specific blessing at paragraph 31 would not seem to make much sense if the object of the blessing is the relationship, union or bond. As you noted - the basic purpose of the blessing is to free the two people from their imperfections, which would ultimately entail the end of any improper relationship between them. So if the object of the blessing is the relationship, the bond or the "coupling" then the couple would ask the priest to bless what is to be ended. Perhaps this might be conceptually possible (imparting grace on a relationship so that the relationship may be healed and purified) but this idea does strike me as something akin to "blessing masturbation so that the person ceases masturbating". Perhaps something like that is possible in the context of blessing a "coupling" or a "relationship" but it does not make a whole lot of sense to me.

On the other hand, if the object of the blessing is the individuals (the "two people") as opposed to the relationship itself, this comports naturally with the blessing set forth in paragraph 31. Here, the priest is simply asking for God to impart actual grace to the two people. When the two people recieve this grace, this enables them be freed from their imperfections (same-sex attractions, improper relationships, etc.) I am not even sure if it is possible for a relationship to be the recipient of actual grace but perhaps that is something you could inform me of.

Okay, but what if the pope issued a document that said, "The teaching of the church is now that homosexual acts are licit. This does not contradict previous teaching. This is a development. We have a new and improved theology of human acts." (Because this is what would actually happen. No institution straightforwardly contradicts its weightiest tenets.)

I will admit that I am reluctant to think that such a thing could be possible because it would shake one of the foundations of my faith. I do not want to see that certainly and I may be biased in favor of "Popesplaining," as some say, for that reason. But at the end of the day if this happened I would call BS just like you would. I think the main difference between us here is that you would probably stay within the church and fight the pope, whereas I would probably leave the church. I think this has to do with different views that we have about the nature of the magisterium, which we started to discuss in the other thread about Bellarmine's position.

Yes, thanks. I understand where you are coming from as well, and I am glad you are thinking through the issues.

Thanks. I am sure that you will have some objections to my viewpoint discussed above and I will let you have the final word on it. I've devoted way too much time to a topic that will ultimately be resolved by the pope, bishops and theologians. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out but again I have confidence that "the gates of hell shall not prevail".

 

[IcyChain]

 

[IcyChain]

 

[chevyontheriver]

I think this video is based on a mistaken understanding by cardinal Fernandez of the African bishops. Unless you actually know of any African bishops that are reluctant to bless homosexual partners only because a public blessing might cause legal problems for such homosexual partners. That was the Fernandez presumption. Of course African bishops are eager to bless homosexual partners, except they don't want such people exposed. When I first saw that in the Frenandez interview I smelled something stinky. I am now coming to the conclusion that cardinal Fernandez is not only too clever by half but also has a dishonest streak. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the African bishops will say they are all for blessing homosexual partners but for the risk of exposing them to legal action. We'll see. It won't be long before the African bishops make their statement. Will it be for the reason cardinal Fernandez said? I can't wait to see how that plays out.

I don't know much about this Fr. Goering. So far all I can say is that he is a smooth talker. To me he looks like a talking head. I suppose he takes cardinal Fernandez at face value. I am not sure I can take cardinal Fernandez at face value. Too clever. Too much 'A' and 'not A' all merged together without an awareness of contradiction. Too much inventing what words like 'couple' mean inside of his private linguistic universe. I don't know if I should trust him as far as I could throw him. We'll see.

Things to watch:

Does he say or do anything in correction of James Martin? If he does nothing then James Martin has understood the pope better than all of those who say there has been no change.

Does cardinal Fernandez instruct the Germans merely to separate new blessings chronologically and spatially and sartorially from weddings in the case of homosexuals or others in 'irregular' arrangements? If separation is all he wants then those who resist the pope on this are correct. He's fine keeping the scandal sub rosa unless he adds some real clarifiers in discussions with the Germans.

What reasons will the African bishops give for rejecting blessing homosexual partners? Unless they say it is to protect such people from legal trouble I think cardinal Fernandez at minimum doesn't have a clue about the African bishops, and perhaps he is just making up stories to spin things. We'll see soon enough.

The best thing pope Francis could do is withdraw this new document quickly. Admit that mistakes were made in releasing it. Call it a bad first draft or something. Every day it stands he gains friends with the world but alienates faithful Christians who know you must never bless sin even if you can bless sinners,

 

[zippy2006]

That is not my position.

I am saying that your argument entails this absurd consequence. If you are going to depend on a premise which dissociates "coupleship" from sexual activity, then you have to answer my counterargument which shows the strange consequences of such a move. If the pre-sexual same-sex couple is not engaging in sexual acts, then on your view there is nothing disordered in their coupleship.

I am looking at the langauge in a completely different manner. Going back to my earlier hypothetical - let's say I am people-watching with my friend John. There are two couples walking down the street. Couple A and Couple B. Both Couple A and Couple B are holding hands and kissing signifying romantic connections between them. Couple A is wearing clown suits. I point in the direction of Couple A and state "Hey John, look at that couple". Here, what I want my friend John to do is to look at Couple A as opposed to Couple B. I just say "that couple" to identify the specific two people that I want John to look at. That is, my primary objective here is to get my friend John to look at "two people". I use the phrase "that couple" only for the purpose of identifying which specific "two people" that I want John to look at. If they had been a two-person chain-gang I would have said "John, look at the chain-gang". Here, it is almost irrelevant to me whether the two people are a couple or a chain-gang. I just want to identify the two people that I want John to look at. Whether the two people are a couple or a chain gang has almost no significance to the verb "look" and my objective, which is to get my friend John to look at the two people.

Suppose you don't point at anyone, but just say, "Hey John, look at that couple." Both sets of two people are in plain sight. Which people will John look at? (Note that all you keep doing is denying the definition of "couple" that you provided from Merriam-Webster.)

In the context of the document I am interpreting the phrase "blessing a same-sex couple" in a very similar way as "look at that couple" in the example above. The primary objective here is simply to bless two people. Which two people? Two people who are in a same-sex relationship. I could say "bless a same-sex couple" or I could say "bless an opposite-sex couple" but in either case what I want to do is to bless "two people". Them being "same-sex" or "opposite-sex" is tangential. The phrase is just a way to identify the specific two people who are the obejct of the blessing. That is, the object of the blessing at its core is the blessing of "two people". The object of the blessing is not intended to be the relationship, the "union" or the "coupling" at all.

Then the document should have been written about blessing friendships, as I already noted. If their sex were "tangential" then the document would not have spoken specifically of their sex. To speak about "a same-sex couple" is to speak about a sexed couple.

So whether the "relationship" or the "coupling" involves people who are chaste or sexually active is immaterial because the object of the blessing is simply "two people" as opposed to the "relationship" or the "coupling" itself.

I suspect that this sounds ludicrous to you.

Yes, it is ludicrous because the document is about blessing those who are sexually active in extramarital relationships. That is why the document is about both heterosexual couples in irregular situations, and same-sex couples. You seem to have missed this entirely, early on. The whole reason the blessing is controversial and the document is so careful is because the object of the blessing has, up to now, been illicit. That is why it is an "innovation." That is why a new theology of blessing is being proposed. It is illicit because of the connection of the coupleship with sinful sexual acts.

(I use the neologism "coupleship" to prescind from the couple vs. union question)

I think you see the phrase "bless a couple" and intuitivley think that it must in some way or fashion refer to blessing the relationship, the bond, or the coupling of the two people, rather than merely blessing the two individual people who form the couple. You seem to think "If that were the case, if that were all that the phrase means, then there would be no reason for the bloody document in the first place".

Yes, because no one thinks blessing individuals is a problem. If the document wanted to do this it could have said, "As you already know, you can bless sinful individuals as long as you are not blessing their sins." That would have avoided all of the controversy. But it wouldn't have helped the German situation.

If you look at the specific blessing that is approved by the document at paragraph 31 above - I think that it is very clear that the blessing is imparted on the two people who are in the improper relationship, rather than being imparted on the relationship, bond, the "coupling" or the union itself.

I suggest reading it again. The subject is consistently the two as a single unit, as a single couple ("themselves," "their own status," "their lives," "their relationships," etc.). There is no indication at all that separated individuals are being blessed. In fact there is perhaps no way, using common language, to further emphasize that the two being blessed are united.

3) As you mentioned earlier in the thread, the specific blessing at paragraph 31 would not seem to make much sense if the object of the blessing is the relationship, union or bond. As you noted - the basic purpose of the blessing is to free the two people from their imperfections, which would ultimately entail the end of any improper relationship between them. So if the object of the blessing is the relationship, the bond or the "coupling" then the couple would ask the priest to bless what is to be ended. Perhaps this might be conceptually possible (imparting grace on a relationship so that the relationship may be healed and purified) but this idea does strike me as something akin to "blessing masturbation so that the person ceases masturbating". Perhaps something like that is possible in the context of blessing a "coupling" or a "relationship" but it does not make a whole lot of sense to me.

Correct, but the exact same logic applies to blessing the couple (and that is how I stated it earlier in the thread). If the blessing succeeds then apparently the couple that is being blessed will no longer be a couple. It is precisely the same logic.

Note well that saying, "It can't be X because then the document would be self-contradictory," is not even a relevant response to our charge that the document is self-contradictory. In logical terms this is the informal fallacy of begging the question. Instead you are required to show, organically, that the document does not contradict itself. You can't just assume that it doesn't contradict itself and then redefine the literal sense of the words and clauses to fit your pre-determined conclusion.

I am not even sure if it is possible for a relationship to be the recipient of actual grace but perhaps that is something you could inform me of.

Sure: the blessing of a married couple that I cited earlier would be an example of a relationship receiving an actual grace.

I will admit that I am reluctant to think that such a thing could be possible because it would shake one of the foundations of my faith. I do not want to see that certainly and I may be biased in favor of "Popesplaining," as some say, for that reason. But at the end of the day if this happened I would call BS just like you would.

Okay, fair enough.

Thanks. I am sure that you will have some objections to my viewpoint discussed above and I will let you have the final word on it. I've devoted way too much time to a topic that will ultimately be resolved by the pope, bishops and theologians. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out but again I have confidence that "the gates of hell shall not prevail".

Fair enough.

I haven't read or watched much outside of the document itself, but I did read the article about Cardinal Fernández' clarifications on Pillar Catholic. It was almost as evasive as the document itself, but there he takes a different tack than you do. He basically says that the non-sexual parts of the relationship are being blessed. He also speaks of "blessing irregular couples," which is useful and transparent, explicating precisely what I have been saying about the extramarital nature of both sorts of relationships.

I could be wrong but I think you are viewing a "couple" and a "union" as fundamentally the same sort of thing. They are both types of "bonds" or "relationships". Perhaps the only difference between them being the specific requirements (whatever they are) that constitute the "union" and the "couple". When you see the phrase "blessing a couple" I think you see it as substantially the same as "blessing a union". You are blessing a relationship in either case, just different types of relationships. I think you interpret the document as using the phrase "bless a couple" in substantially the same way as the document stating "bless a union".

Yes, this is correct and incisive. But for me (and for Thomists) a "union" is not reified, nor does it mean "civil union." A union is simply that which unites the couple (or any group of people). So to bless brothers is to bless a union; to bless a married couple is to bless a union; to bless friends is to bless a union, etc. A union when it comes to a couple is more or less the same as the relationship, with some slight philosophical differences. What is at stake is the nature of the union in question.

So I would interpret Fernández as intending to bless the non-sinful aspects of the union, and my objection would be that the union of a couple, according to Merriam-Webster, is ordered to engagement, marriage, and the sort of romance that attends those realities (sexual romance). Now there are non-sexual aspects to the sort of union which unites a couple (i.e. romantic union), but if Merriam-Webster is right, then to bless these non-sexual aspects of the union without blessing the romantic essence of the union, would be like blessing a tree without blessing the roots, trunk, branches, leaves, sap, or bark. Or blessing a car without blessing the engine.

At a deeper root are abstruse debates about the legitimacy of non-sexual, same-sex, "romantic" relationships. But these debates are so obscure and infrequent that I would be surprised if the document is referencing them, much less taking a strong stand on such an underdeveloped theological question. Honestly, I think the document is painfully imprecise, underdeveloped, imprudent, and premature. And I think there is every reason to believe it is incoherent/self-contradictory, even though there are tiny possibilities that it is not.

More basically, here is a comment I posted to Trent Horn's YouTube video, which I skimmed:

"Can Horn defend his claim that there is a relevant difference between a couple and the union that unites them, such that one could bless the couple qua couple without blessing the union that constitutes their pairing? Such an idea strikes me as dubious."​

 

[Gnarwhal]

So did you guys see what happened in Argentina?

On December 17th lightning struck a statue of Saint Peter at Our Lady of the Rosary of San Nicolas, the strike fried off his keys, his halo, and his blessing hand.

Not only was December 17th the final day of preparation for Feducia Supplicans but it's also Pope Francis' birthday, (an Argentinian for anyone in this thread who may not have known or had forgotten).

 

[chevyontheriver]

So did you guys see what happened in Argentina?

On December 17th lightning struck a statue of Saint Peter at Our Lady of the Rosary of San Nicolas, the strike fried off his keys, his halo, and his blessing hand.

Not only was December 17th the final day of preparation for Feducia Supplicans but it's also Pope Francis' birthday, (an Argentinian for anyone in this thread who may not have known or had forgotten).

View attachment 340853

Curious.

 

[IcyChain]

I am saying that your argument entails this absurd consequence. If you are going to depend on a premise which dissociates "coupleship" from sexual activity, then you have to answer my counterargument which shows the strange consequences of such a move. If the pre-sexual same-sex couple is not engaging in sexual acts, then on your view there is nothing disordered in their coupleship.


Suppose you don't point at anyone, but just say, "Hey John, look at that couple." Both sets of two people are in plain sight. Which people will John look at? (Note that all you keep doing is denying the definition of "couple" that you provided from Merriam-Webster.)


Then the document should have been written about blessing friendships, as I already noted. If their sex were "tangential" then the document would not have spoken specifically of their sex. To speak about "a same-sex couple" is to speak about a sexed couple.


Yes, it is ludicrous because the document is about blessing those who are sexually active in extramarital relationships. That is why the document is about both heterosexual couples in irregular situations, and same-sex couples. You seem to have missed this entirely, early on. The whole reason the blessing is controversial and the document is so careful is because the object of the blessing has, up to now, been illicit. That is why it is an "innovation." That is why a new theology of blessing is being proposed. It is illicit because of the connection of the coupleship with sinful sexual acts.

(I use the neologism "coupleship" to prescind from the couple vs. union question)


Yes, because no one thinks blessing individuals is a problem. If the document wanted to do this it could have said, "As you already know, you can bless sinful individuals as long as you are not blessing their sins." That would have avoided all of the controversy. But it wouldn't have helped the German situation.


I suggest reading it again. The subject is consistently the two as a single unit, as a single couple ("themselves," "their own status," "their lives," "their relationships," etc.). There is no indication at all that separated individuals are being blessed. In fact there is perhaps no way, using common language, to further emphasize that the two being blessed are united.


Correct, but the exact same logic applies to blessing the couple (and that is how I stated it earlier in the thread). If the blessing succeeds then apparently the couple that is being blessed will no longer be a couple. It is precisely the same logic.

Note well that saying, "It can't be X because then the document would be self-contradictory," is not even a relevant response to our charge that the document is self-contradictory. In logical terms this is the informal fallacy of begging the question. Instead you are required to show, organically, that the document does not contradict itself. You can't just assume that it doesn't contradict itself and then redefine the literal sense of the words and clauses to fit your pre-determined conclusion.


Sure: the blessing of a married couple that I cited earlier would be an example of a relationship receiving an actual grace.


Okay, fair enough.


Fair enough.

I haven't read or watched much outside of the document itself, but I did read the article about Cardinal Fernández' clarifications on Pillar Catholic. It was almost as evasive as the document itself, but there he takes a different tack than you do. He basically says that the non-sexual parts of the relationship are being blessed. He also speaks of "blessing irregular couples," which is useful and transparent, explicating precisely what I have been saying about the extramarital nature of both sorts of relationships.


Yes, this is correct and incisive. But for me (and for Thomists) a "union" is not reified, nor does it mean "civil union." A union is simply that which unites the couple (or any group of people). So to bless brothers is to bless a union; to bless a married couple is to bless a union; to bless friends is to bless a union, etc. A union when it comes to a couple is more or less the same as the relationship, with some slight philosophical differences. What is at stake is the nature of the union in question.

So I would interpret Fernández as intending to bless the non-sinful aspects of the union, and my objection would be that the union of a couple, according to Merriam-Webster, is ordered to engagement, marriage, and the sort of romance that attends those realities (sexual romance). Now there are non-sexual aspects to the sort of union which unites a couple (i.e. romantic union), but if Merriam-Webster is right, then to bless these non-sexual aspects of the union without blessing the romantic essence of the union, would be like blessing a tree without blessing the roots, trunk, branches, leaves, sap, or bark. Or blessing a car without blessing the engine.

At a deeper root are abstruse debates about the legitimacy of non-sexual, same-sex, "romantic" relationships. But these debates are so obscure and infrequent that I would be surprised if the document is referencing them, much less taking a strong stand on such an underdeveloped theological question. Honestly, I think the document is painfully imprecise, underdeveloped, imprudent, and premature. And I think there is every reason to believe it is incoherent/self-contradictory, even though there are tiny possibilities that it is not.

More basically, here is a comment I posted to Trent Horn's YouTube video, which I skimmed:

"Can Horn defend his claim that there is a relevant difference between a couple and the union that unites them, such that one could bless the couple qua couple without blessing the union that constitutes their pairing? Such an idea strikes me as dubious."​

Thank you for sharing your view on it. I think my view of the document is correct, but I could be wrong. For now instead of debating this matter further I am going to sit back for a while and listen to what various people have to say about the document. Some smarter heads than me agree with my view. Some smarter heads than me disagree with my view. The pope, bishops, and the theologians will work it all out eventually.

 

[zippy2006]

On December 17th lightning struck a statue of Saint Peter at Our Lady of the Rosary of San Nicolas, the strike fried off his keys, his halo, and his blessing hand.

Eerie. (Andrea Cionci- "Buenos Aires: lightning on the halo and keys of St. Peter. Bergoglio at the end of the road?")

 

[IcyChain]

I think this video is based on a mistaken understanding by cardinal Fernandez of the African bishops.

Yes. I agree with you on this point. He seems to want to limit the objections simply to a matter of avoiding legal problems but that is clearly not the case, at least in some countries. Some have clearly expressed an objection to the content of the document itself.

I don't know much about this Fr. Goering.

He is a conservative priest. He is frequently mentioned on Life-Site News:

Mark Goring Archives - LifeSite

www.lifesitenews.com

If you read some of the coverage of him you will see that he has been an outspoken critic of many of the same things that the "traditionalist" Catholics criticize. He seems to have taken a lot of flack from his usual supporters for having a more positive view of Fiducia Supplicans.

I suspect that you would have found him to be the greatest thing since sliced bread up until 1 week ago.

Things to watch:

Does he say or do anything in correction of James Martin? If he does nothing then James Martin has understood the pope better than all of those who say there has been no change.

Well - I already gave you my opinion concerning the validity of using James Martin as a litmus test for the interpretation of the document. I need not repeat it here.

Does cardinal Fernandez instruct the Germans merely to separate new blessings chronologically and spatially and sartorially from weddings in the case of homosexuals or others in 'irregular' arrangements? If separation is all he wants then those who resist the pope on this are correct. He's fine keeping the scandal sub rosa unless he adds some real clarifiers in discussions with the Germans.

Only God knows what will happen with the German bishops. And the "traditionalists" for that matter. Place your bets on who will fall into formal schism first and pray that neither group does.

What reasons will the African bishops give for rejecting blessing homosexual partners? Unless they say it is to protect such people from legal trouble I think cardinal Fernandez at minimum doesn't have a clue about the African bishops, and perhaps he is just making up stories to spin things. We'll see soon enough.

I think that the supposed rejection of the teaching by the African bishops is being overblown and that many of the papal-critics are going to be severly disappointed when they accept the teaching. I think that they will work with the pope and Fernandez to offer some clarifications and the proper way of interpreting the document but that they will eventually accept it along with most of the other bishops in the world.

The Nigerian bishops, the largest country in Africa by population, for example, have already received the teaching as you can see in the letter below:

CBCN ON FIDUCIA SUPPLICANS ON FIDUCIA SUPPLICANS - NIGERIA CATHOLIC NETWORK

www.nigeriacatholicnetwork.com

I think the other African nations will follow suit, even those that have initially rejected the teaching. Here, pope Francis has not set rigid rules in the document, so it still leaves much to the discretion of individual bishops concerning the specific implementation, taking into account the specific cultural and other circumstances in the diocese of each bishop.

 

[zippy2006]

I suspect that you would have found him to be the greatest thing since sliced bread up until 1 week ago.

I would not accept arguments from authority from Fr. Goring or Michael Lofton, although one could certainly do worse.

When it comes to YouTube, I would say Fr. Gregory Pine is very precise and careful. Cardinal Müller is top-rate. Dr. Larry Chapp is worth listening to when he is having a good day, and he often interviews guests who are deeply knowledgeable. When he publishes with news agencies he is most careful and clear.