He issued a statement today posted on the Vatican News website. It reads to me as basically repeating what the original document said, with a few points of clarification, but ambiguity and confusion still remaining.
Bishops can implement this differently based on local circumstances. The blessing must be short. It cannot be in a prominent place of a sacred place (church, chapel, etc) or in front of the altar.
But it IS a blessing of the couple for what is good in their mutual life. It can be in public. It can’t resemble a liturgical rite or wedding, or approving of the sexual union. He gives an example of a couple at a pilgrimage approaching a priest needing a blessing because of extreme hardships. He insists priests giving these blessings aren’t heretics.
Does this sufficiently clarify the document to be read clearly in an orthodox sense? I would argue overall No. It does repeat again that the blessing must avoid appearing to give approval of the sexual union, such that one can point to this and insist it can’t be something planned, as an event in the main body of the parish church, with a photographer, and a reception afterwards.
However, this does officially clarify that a) it IS a blessing of the COUPLE not merely an individual, and b) can be in public. Therefore, since it is up to the bishop how to implement it based on local culture, it could be read by the bishop to allow a more conservative, orthodox form, or a more liberal, heterodox form.
A conservative bishop over a conservative diocese could limit the blessing to something more private just between the priest and the two people, whereas a liberal bishop over a liberal diocese could approve of planned public non-liturgical blessing events somewhere in the church not in front of the altar, publicly affirming what is good in the couple relationship (minus the sexual aspect), with a reception afterwards. That is my reading.
And we also have to understand the document related to Amoris Laetitia, which Fernandez is said to have written a part of, which calls for practicing homosexuals to be better integrated into the parish community, including as lectors and godparents.
This would then favor the liberal interpretation/scenario described above. The thing is, this document being released only two weeks ago with much confusion, the document itself saying there needs to be no further clarification, yet there being now two clarifications given by Fernandez, yet the clarifications not ruling this out, suggests the document does allow it.