Yes, but there is a difference between a couple and an individual, and I don't think the document manages to take that difference into account. The document makes arguments on the basis of individuals and then applies the conclusions of those arguments to couples. But the two are quite different. When it comes to individuals it is rather easy to separate the sin from the sinner. When it comes to couples it is a great deal more difficult.
The document is clear that the blessing of couples is permitted, and what is a couple apart from the union that unites them? Can a couple really be singled out from the reality that constitutes their coupling?
Yes, I agree.
Right, but I don't believe couples will act in this manner, or I would at least say that it would be extremely rare. So you are right that it is not a strict contradiction. "We are a homosexual couple and we want you to bless us to help us stop engaging in homosexual acts." I don't see this as a realistic scenario, although it is technically possible.
One way to think about it is as follows. When a couple is being blessed as a couple, the thing that unites and pairs them is also being blessed. So to bless a married couple is to bless the marriage which unites them. But if a blessing is ultimately intended to dissolve a coupling, then what unites and pairs the couple is not being blessed (it is, in a relevant sense, being cursed or opposed). In that sense such a blessing would be a blessing of individuals, not a couple, for the intention is that the coupling cease and the individuals separate, at least insofar as their sexual activity is concerned. It is this language of blessing "the couple" that is the difficulty, for one cannot bless a couple as a couple without blessing the thing that makes them a couple.
Yes, perhaps. My difficulty is that while it is easy to separate an individual from their sin, it is much more difficult to separate a homosexual couple from their sin. The homosexual activity is precisely what makes them a couple. As Merriam-Webster identifies, the difference between a couple and two friends is the romantic aspect. For an analogy, if sex were a sin then marriage could not be blessed, for sex is central to the marital pairing. But you are surely right that the document tries to bless the couple without blessing the sin, so to speak. Still, many of us wonder if this is logically possible.
You too. Good thoughts.
OK I lied. I am jumping back into the thread.
The "sex being a sin" hypothetical you raised is interesting. It raises in my mind the question of "what makes a couple?" Let's say you have two gay men that have been best friends for a few years. They hang out with each other every weekend. They are super-close, but do not engage in any sexual activity of any kind. They may even live together, but they are chaste. Are they a couple? If this same pair of men starts having sex, do they then become a couple?
Let's then look at the situation where you have a Catholic male and female who have been dating each other for a year or two. They are best friends. They hang out every weekend. They are exploring the possibility of marriage. But they are completely chaste as well. Both of us would call these two people a couple even though they are not having sex, right? So it can't be the case that sex is what makes two people "a couple".
So even in the case that "a same-sex couple" (in the sense of them as a "unit", "bond" or "relationship") is the object of the blessing, I do not think that we can view the sinful activity (the two men having sex) as constitutive element of what makes them a "couple" because we have couples that do not engage in sex. So then is it possible to bless the "couple" without blessing the sin that the couple engages in, because the sin itself is not what makes them a "couple"? I do not know. My intuition is that making the couple (in the sense of "the bond" or the "unit") the object of the blessing would be error, but it is difficult for me to pin down exactly why, when I look at it from this perspective. The question here is, what is the specific constitutive element of a male-male "couple" that would make blessing this couple tantamount to blessing sin?
Then I also wonder, if a Catholic unmarried male-female couple are having sex, would the priest be forbidden from giving them a blessing if they asked for one?
Going back to the main issue of how "blessing a couple" should be understood, please correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are looking at the two people as forming a unit (the "couple") that is bigger than the individual parts, and you think that it is the unit that is being blessed. If that is right, I don't think it is unreasonable, especially if we were to look just at the term "blessing of a couple" outside of the overall context of the document. In substance, I think this essentially equates "blessing of the couple" to mean "blessing of the unit", "blessing of the relationship" or "blessing of the bond". But let me know if I have misunderstood you.
Then it seems that from your perspective, if the "couple" (e.g. the unit, relationship or the bond) is the object of the blessing then the only way this blessing could be permissible is if the couple has agreed to be chaste (similar to the "brother and sister" arrangement for the divorced and remarried). This is one way we could interpret the document without falling into error, but I agree with you that this seems like a stretch. At least to me, the "brother and sister" relationship does not appear to be what the document contemplates.
When I read the document I did not have the impression at all that "blessing of a couple" should be interpreted in that manner, however. I think a big part of that is because the document goes to pretty-good lengths to clarify that the object of a blessing cannot be sin and that there is no intention to give legitimacy to the validity of same-sex unions. Here the document states that "the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex"; "the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice"; "a blessing requires that what is blessed be conformed to God’s will" and "precisely to avoid any form of confusion or scandal, when the prayer of blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation, even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding".
With all of that background, when I read the term "blessing of couples" in the document, I immediatley thought that it meant "blessing of the two people forming the couple" or "blessing of the two people in the relationship." I thought this sentence in particular made it clear that the object of the blessing is the people in the relationship, not the union itself: "In such cases, 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."
I thought the part about the blessing descending from God down upon those who recognize themselves to be destitute to be clearly referring to the people themselves as the object of the blessing.
Even outside of the context of the document itself, I think its reasonable to interpret "blessing of a couple" as "blessing of the two people in a romantic relationship". For example, if the document had stated "blessing of brothers" and I approached a priest after Mass with my brother and said "Father, could you please bless me and my brother" - I don't have the intention for the priest to bless our status or bond of being "brothers" and I don't think the priest has that intention either. I look at it as the priest blessing the two of us at the same time, and we just so happen to be brothers.
Similarly, let's say that there is a husband and a wife. Sitiuation 1 is that on the day that they get married they ask the priest to bless their marriage. Situation 2 is that on another day they approach a different priest after Mass together and ask for a blessing together as husband and wife. I would tend to think of situation 1 as "blessing the marriage" or "blessing the union" and I would tend to think of Situation 2 more along the lines of "blessing the couple". The situations are not equivalent in my mind. In Situation 1 it is the thing (the marriage / union / bond) that is being blessed. In Situation 2 it is the people that are the object of the blessing (they just so happen to be married).
But I think I understand the way that other people are viewing the document now and what they view as the problem with it. At least now I can see the substance of the objection. The initial reaction by many was more along the lines of various "the pope is trying legalize sodomy" conspiracy theories, so I had trouble taking them seriously.
