In the context of the document "couple" cannot mean "couple," and that is the problem. It is
the Humpty Dumpty problem. It is the self-contradictory problem that I pointed out
in my very first post. The document relies upon the idea that a couple can be blessed without their union being blessed, despite the fact that
the essence of a couple is their union.
Germany thinks same-sex unions should be blessed, the Catholic tradition says they cannot, and now the Vatican has tried to find a compromise position between these two contradictory positions. But there is no middle between contradictories, and that is why contradictions are flowing from such an attempt (
ex contradictione quodlibet).
Then which of the two implausible solutions do you choose? Or is there a third?
I think the way you resolve the problem (which is essentially equating the word "couple" to "friendship" by making the assumption that the "couple" is celibate) is fine. Perhaps that is what the author had in mind but I would need to read the document again with that in view. I did not understand that to be the meaning when I read it, either.
I already explained the option I chose to you. You reject it, which is fine. But I will try to explain it again.
Here, the word "couple" in the document does in fact mean "couple". To bless a same-sex couple simply means to bless two people who are in a same sex relationship. It does not mean to bless the same-sex relationship itself. A priest posted his understanding of this on Facebook. He gave the following example where two couples approach him after Mass and what his response would be:
Married couple: Father, can you bless us? Can you bless our union?
Priest: Yes and Yes.
Same-sex couple: Father, can you bless us? Can you bless our union?
Priest: Yes and no.
It is really that simple. You seem to equate the words "couple" and "coupling" but to do so is error. The words are not equivalent. The word "couple" refers to "two people" that share the attribute of being in a relationship. A "coupling" or a "relationship" refers to the bond that unites the couple. The bond and the couple are not the same thing.
Let me try to give another example. Let's say that there is a chain-gang of Catholic men who have committed serious crimes. They take the chain-gang outside one day to do some manual labor, while still chained. What makes this group of men a chain gang? They are a chain-gang because they have all committed serious crimes and must be bound in chains together while working outside so that none of them may escape. A priest is driving a car down the road while they are outside doing manual labor. Out of charity in his heart the priest decides to bless the chain gang. When the priest blessed the chain gang he blessed the people who committed the crimes and who are now bound together in chains. By blessing the chain gang he did not bless what causes them to be a chain gang (them having committed serious crimes and being bound by chains).
When you go up to a couple and say, "Oh, I think you two make a great couple!," are you speaking to them as separate individuals or as a couple? Is it even possible to refer to a couple in this way without referring to their union? (The only possible ambiguity is between the noun and adjective form of 'couple', but there is no question that it is the noun form that is at play in the document and in romantic relationships.)
Anyone in the world, when they read the sentence, "The couple was blessed," would interpret it to mean that that which unifies the couple was blessed (namely, their union). The fact that the Vatican wants us to now interpret commonsense, obvious sentences in completely unintuitive and backwards ways is deeply, deeply concerning. This is not a small thing. It almost always goes hand in hand with "arbitrary exercises of power," as Muller pointed out.
Lets say I am people watching with a friend while sitting on the sidewalk. A man and a woman are walking together in a romantic way (holding hands and kissing). This couple happens to be wearing matching clown suits. I say to my friend "Hey, look at that couple!" Here, I am referring to the two people as an entity, but what makes them an entity (their relationship) is almost entirely irrelevant. I want my friend to look at the two people. I do not want my friend to look at their relationship. Referring to them as a couple is merely a means of identifying the two people that I want my friend to look at.
I understand your viewpoint but I do not agree with it. I think that it is an entirely incorrect reading of the text. To me, it is like interpreting the phrase "The priest blessed the chain gang" to mean that the priest blessed murder and whatever other crimes they committed. It is untenable to me.
When I read the document I did not interpret "blessing of couples" to mean a blessing of that which unifies the couple in the slightest. That reading of the phrase may be completely commonsense to you, but it was completely alien to me. I am speaking in all honesty here even though this may surprise you. The way that you were interpreting the phrase did not occur to me at all in the slightest until you explained your view to me several times. It actually came as a surprise to me when I finally understood how you interpreted the phrase.
As I wrote, perhaps that is because we come to the document with a different background or a different way of reading text
For what is worth, as matter of prudence the document does not strike me as a great idea. It is not something that I would recommend or permit myself were I pope. But ultimately that is not up to me.
