970
Pope Francis: I don’t bless a ‘homosexual marriage.’ I bless two people who love each other.
(www.americamagazine.org)
this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
970 points (96.9% liked)
World News
38278 readers
2401 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean....yeah? Did you think progress was going to come from the outside? Someone's gotta make an effort to steer the ship the right way.
Right? Credit where credit's due
They’d claim he’s possessed by a demon and disappear him.
There'd be a schism, with the people who are currently getting upset instead just up and leaving. That might seem like a good thing, at first, but if the goal is to get everyone to heaven, you're not really achieving it if half the people are leaving.
I mean, you could say that you're not achieving it either way, but that's the thinking anyhow.
Regardless, I'm fairly sure he would disagree with you, and I was discussing his motivations.
I try to be more generous than that when considering other people's motivations, even those whose actions I find despicable.
It obviously doesn't excuse despicable actions, but it does give the opportunity to recognize when people are trying to be better.
Holding leaders to a higher standard doesn't mean calling them evil because they believe something different than you, it means not letting them hide behind their religion for their choices.
But given that he does believe in heaven, and the organization he leads is made out of people who also believe in heaven, the fact that he's trying to get as many people there as possible is hard to fault him for, especially when the thing he's doing (telling the church to be more welcoming and kind to lgbtq folks) is objectively good.
No, it's him acknowledging his religion and saying people should be kind and respectful anyway.
Homosexuality is a complicated subject among Catholics to say the least. Homosexual "acts" are officially a sin in Catholicism, and without the kind of change that would cause a schism, Francis can't change that. From his perspective, if it did cause a schism anyone on the wrong side of the schism would be in jeopardy, and even if they weren't they'd just continue on calling people sinners for being gay which Francis and the official stance of the church does oppose.
So the Pope saying it's okay to bless people even if you think they might be sinning may not be the most progressive thing in the world, may not be the most progressive thing he could say, but I do understand why he would say what he's saying instead of something more concrete.
I don't have to agree with everything he says or thinks to recognize that.
In just the same way as the US president can just order all of the nukes to be launched at the moon, yes. But actions have consequences, so he doesn't, even if it might be the "better" course of action for humanity if he did. Because it wouldn't be the best course for his organization (at least from his perspective).
Wouldn't be the first time. In fact, it happens at a small scale fairly often, and it's generally perceived as a tragedy when it does.
It's not really. It's an elected office, and certainly a political one. If there's not a way to depose him once elected, it doesn't make it not political. As for his supposed despotic power, he could theoretically do basically anything, but he doesn't because the reality is that he doesn't have the political will to do it.
Progress won't come from any Christianity (and likely almost any religion, but I don't know others well enough to comment). They will either need to denounce the book as being bullshit and decide to progress or they will continue to hold society behind.
It's worth mentioning that during the dark ages, it was actually monks who preserved history and scientific knowledge, and advanced it. Even afterwards, Mendelian genetics was discovered by Gregor Mendel, a friar and abbot.
On top of that though, a lot of scientific knowledge and mathematics was preserved and cultivated by Islamic empires concurrent to the dark ages. They were in the middle of a golden age and progressed those fields further.
The problem isn't so much religion in itself, but evangelicals and literalists who put it above everything else. Zealots ruin it all.
Yeah, the Catholic Church guarded access to education, preventing the rest of the commoners from learning how poorly they translated the Bible to maintain control of the people. It's too bad the Protestant movement didn't destroy the Catholic Church.
You really need to see what progress has come through Christianity to see how absurd your statement is LOL.
You mean despite of Christianity.
The book is bigger than at its base. Our society cannot progress without removing it from a focal point.
The Catholic Church has sponsored plenty of progressive endeavors, both in the fields of science and otherwise. Which is to say nothing of the numerous Catholic people who have done progressive things and would place their faith as their reason for doing so. So there is a lot of progress that has been made because of the church.
That being said, there have also been far too many times where the church deliberately resisted important progress and/or attempted to undo it, hence progress despite the church.
I don't know where the balance lies on that, but I do think it's worth acknowledging both and even moreso acknowledging attempts from within to ensure more of the former and less of the latter.
Yes, for several hundred years, monks were the largest literate social group in Europe. Libraries and the invention of book printing would never have become so large without monasteries and the church.
In those times, science wasn't per se in opposition to the church, that is a relatively modern approach.
Numerous times, they just didn't call it a crusade. Wars and genocide aren't unique to Christians, or even to religion.
And actually, come to think of it, yes, wasn't the third crusade organized by secular parties (kings and such) and not the Pope? If that makes it because of Christianity, then the Iraq war was because of WMDs...
No wars before Christianity...gotcha.