The Vatican seems to want to bless the non-sexual friendship without blessing the romantic relationship. It is worth noting that this also applies to irregular situations. The Vatican would bless a divorced and remarried couple in precisely the same way, aiming at the car but not the engine.
Yes, I think your view here could ultimately be correct. We shall see.
Strictly speaking, I don't think we bless sinners. We do not bless persons qua sin. We take mercy or pity on sinners, but that which is blessed is not the sinful aspect of the person. Similarly, we have mercy on a cancer patient by strengthening the white blood cells, not by strengthening the cancer cells.
When the cancer is eradicated the person still exists. When the sin is eradicated the person still exists. When the relationship is eradicated the couple no longer exists.
It depends on what we mean by "bless the sinner". We can certainly say "bless the sinner". I Googled the phrase and got about 2 million hits. I think most people would agree that when they hear this phrase, they would understand it to mean "bless the person but not the sin". They would not understand the phrase literally to mean something like "bless the person as a sinner".
If we are using the phrase "bless a same-sex couple" in a colloquial sense I do not see why we cannot understand it to mean "bless the two people but not the relationship". When I read the document by myself for the first time without input from anyone else, that is instantly what I thought the phrase meant. There are more than a few people who have interpreted the phrase this way too.
After thinking about this more your interpretation also appears reasonable. The way that you interpreted it was not intuitive to me, but I can understand why you interpreted the phrase in a more literal sense to mean "bless a couple as a couple".
The Merriam-Webster definition does not prescind from sex, for the whole definition is based in marriage and engagement. Or do you think sex is irrelevant to marriage? I addressed this idea in some detail in past posts.
Well, I think that the word "relevant" is a bit imprecise. Relevant in what sense? Sure, sex is relevant to marraige. I hope that my marriage has lots of it. But so are many other things. A house, money and many other things are relevant to marriage.
Intepreting "blessing a same-sex couple" to mean something like "blessing a same-sex friendship" as you set forth above is one way to view the document, as you mentioned above. But I tend to agree with your view that the document contemplates couples that are having sex. At the least, there is nothing in the document that explcilty excludes them having sex. And as you note, the sexual activity is primarily what would make these relationsips sinful. So it is reasonable to think that the document is directed towards the question of whether couples who are engaged in illiict sexual activity can be blessed.
But even assuming that to be the case, for the sake of argument, I do not think that you can prove what you seek out to prove.
First, even if the document contemplates that a couple is engaged in illicit sexual activity, it does not therefore conlcude that the document contemplates that sexual activity is a constituent element of what defines a "couple". There is no general theological definition of the word "couple" (that I am aware of) and there is no defintion of the word "couple" that set is forth in the document.
Second, from Merriam Webster it does not conclude that sexual activity is a constituent element of what defines a "couple". Here, the definition is "two persons married, engaged, or otherwise romantically paired". There are three categories of couples here: (i) two persons married, (ii) two persons engaged, and (iii) two-persons romantically paired. The fact that sex is a normative activity for category (i) does not mean that it is a normative activity for category (iii). Nor does it logically conclude from the definition that category (iii) is ultimately oriented towards cateory (i).
Third, from common parlance it does not conclude that sexual activity is a constituent element of what defines a "couple", or that "couples" are ulimately oriented towards marriage. You wrote that any two people that are not sexually active or pursuing marriage cannot be considered a "couple" and that they can only be referred to as "dating" but this is something that you need to prove.
Fourth, even if the document and/or Merriam Webster did define formally define sexual activity as a constitutent element of what defines a "couple", this would be immaterial becuase the relationship itself is not what is being blessed. That is, "blessing a couple" in the document is not used in the sense of "blessing a coupleship" but rather in the sense of "blessing the two people who form the couple". If the author had intended to bless the "coupleship" he easily could have done so by using a phrase such as "blessing the relationship". It is my view that the word "couple" emphasizes two people, not the relationship. You disagree with me on this point, of course, but you need to prove your interpretation.
So it still seems to me that your argument requires a large number of inferences that cannot be proven, or that are difficult to prove.
It would be interesting if you set forth a formal proof for your argument, however. There appears to be many different elements to your argument and I must confess that it is difficult for me to follow your entire argument logically. At various points during our discussion I have felt a bit "lost in the trees while failing to see the forest." A formal proof might help me understand the complete logic behind your argument (I do not actually expect you to provide one, but if you want to provide one perhaps it may be useful for anyone reading this thread who wants to better understand your argument).
Like one of the videos stated, I think "union" is more of a theological term that we could probably elaborate on by referring to theological texts. The term "couple," on the other hand, is much more difficult. We can go to several different dictionaries and get different definitions. We can speculate about what consitutes a "couple" by making inferences from the content of the document itself, but at the end of the day there is no clear definition of the term "couple" or the term "blessing a couple" in the document itself. This is ultimatley something that I think the Holy See will need to issue additional guidance on, to clear up the intended meaning.
I also said there is no abrogation. A contradiction is not an abrogation. No one in the world thinks there has been an abrogation.
If there is a contradiction betwen Law A and Law B, what law applies? Typically, if a new law is enacted that directly conflicts with the previous law then in effect, we follow the new law instead of the first law. So for all practical purposes Law A has been abrogated because it is no longer followed.
Perhaps if there is a contradiction between Law A and Law B, we need not say that Law A has been abrogated in its entirety. But to the extent that a provision in Law B conflicts with Law A and we decide to follow Law B instead of Law A, it seems that the provision in Law A has been abrogated for all practical purposes.
So, is it your view that the Responsum or specific provisions in the Responsum have been abgrogated in this sense? If not, what is your view? Does the Responsum apply or does Fiducia Supplicans apply?
I've already addressed this fallacy:
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.
Yes, what you wrote above is correct.
The issue here is that every document requires interpretation. I would say that "If Law X is to remain in force, and it is improper to break Law X, then it is improper to interpret a new Law Y in a manner that would break Law X. The new Law Y should be interpreted in a manner that does not contradict Law X." I think this is a form of the so-called "heremenutic of continuity." Do you not agree with this heremenutic?
www.complicitclergy.com
