Blessings in Disguise

Every now and then, I comment in this blog on news related to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ("OHCAC") that took up much of my time in my increasingly distant youth, though it now does so only sporadically.  At the moment, I'm interested in the controversy surrounding Fiducia Supplicans, which it seems is a declaration on Catholic doctrine issued with the support of the Pontifex Maximus allowing priests to bless...well, I'm not sure what, frankly.  It seems, though, to allow blessings of a sort to be made to couples engaged in an irregular or same-sex relationship.  This sort of blessing doesn't constitute a validation of the relationship, however, which remains forbidden.

I admit to some confusion.  I'm a lawyer, and so am not phased by distinctions which may baffle normal people.  I can accept that a relationship may be recognized without being validated, or sanctioned.  I can also accept that those involved in a relationship may be blessed though the relationship itself may be forbidden (well, for religious purposes in any case--religions forbid so much after all).  Sinners may be blessed by my understanding, so I suppose that, if OHCAC determines being in a same-sex relationship is sinful, the sinning participant may yet be blessed by a priest.  The problem, if any, arises when the relationship itself is blessed, it seems.  That at least is the position being taken by those functionaries of the Church who object to the declaration.

Let me be clear.  I have no dog in this race.  I don't think such relationships are sinful.  Priest may and do bless pets, which I find charming.  They bless things, and places.  So be it.  I can't recall whether the Gospels or any part of what's considered the New Testament condemns these relationships.  I'd be surprised if Jesus ever directly addressed them, as I think sexual relationships and sex in general weren't matters of great concern to him.  That they are to Catholic clergy is, alas, all too obvious.  This particular kind of sexual relationship is in any case thought to be contrary to doctrine or even Scripture by those who oppose Francis in this matter. 

I think there's a problem with this position, if it is the fact that one is involved in such a relationship that constitutes the sin.  If persons A and B are sinners because they're involved in a same-sex relationship, but nevertheless may be blessed individually, what is it that forbids their relationship from being blessed?  That a relationship exists must be taken as given; that's why those involved in it are sinners (though they are no doubt sinners for other reasons as well; this is assumed by OHCAC, of course).  Is it believed that the relationship is distinct in some sense from those participating in it?   But how can that be the case?  Without them, there would be no relationship to be condemned.

I've seen it claimed that blessing the forbidden union would be like blessing an abortion clinic.  Although, according to some, a woman who has an abortion may be blessed as a sinner in some circumstances, an abortion clinic may not be blessed; such is the argument as I understand it.

The analogy strikes me as less than perfect, however.  A relationship is not a clinic.  If it is a sin to have an abortion, it must be a sin for a doctor to be involved in the abortion as well it is a sin for a woman to obtain one.  There's a doctor-patient relationship involved; both are sinners if having an abortion is a sin.  Yet it seems both, as sinners, may be blessed.  Is it the doctor-patient relationship that is condemned rather than the clinic?

Well, it's an interesting dispute, but happily one which need not concern us, or at least me, except perhaps as part of the history of an ancient and still in some ways fascinating institution. It's unfortunate that sex is so much a part of it and its concerns, and for that matter its own sins, both of omission and commission.