1y ago

Pope says priests can bless same-sex unions, requests should not be subject to moral analysis

Pope Francis has formally approved allowing priests to bless same-sex couples, with a new document explaining a radical change in Vatican policy by insisting that people seeking God’s love and mercy shouldn’t be subject to “an exhaustive moral analysis” to receive it.

World News @lemmy.world

MicroWave @lemmy.world

1y ago

Pope approves blessings for same-sex couples if the rituals don't resemble marriage

apnews.com /article/vatican-lgbtq-pope-bfa5b71fa79055626e362936e739d1d8

You're viewing a single thread.

66 comments

The new document repeats that rationale and elaborates on it, reaffirming that marriage is a lifelong sacrament between a man and a woman. And it stresses that blessings should not be conferred at the same time as a civil union, using set rituals or even with the clothing and gestures that belong in a wedding.
So no real moral progress from the Catholic Church; just more PR to get people back in the pews.
If Catholic God was real, he should be seeking out our love and mercy.
- moral progress
  What's that?
  
  To pull from Folding Ideas:
  Vatican II is in some regards progressive, but only as progressive as needed to retain membership and improve political relations with other conservative organizations.
  This is basically the modus operandi of not just Vatican II, but of most policy changes the church makes. Modernizing, reforming, and liberalizing are reactive steps they take to stem the loss of parishioners and thus mindshare in society.
  ... in other words, with external pressures, individuals and organizations may behave better not because of their inherent beliefs, but because of considerations of social expediency and enlightened self-interest. Buchanan differentiates between improvements from a moral point of view, which are caused by external factors, some possibly independent of human motivation and agency, and genuine moral progress.
  
  What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
  
  I have no interest in semantic rabbit trails.
  If you are unable to infer my meaning, then I'm sorry about that.
  
  It's OK, don't worry, I already downvoted.
  
  Oh no! A downvote? How will I ever recover from this?!
  
  IKR.
  
  That ratio tho
  
  Expected
  
  Acknowledging our arbitrary bigoted views and changing for the better to be accepting of differences. For example, moving past homophobia.
  
  That seems like a very narrow definition. Are you sure you're not just spouting your opinion?
  
  Do you think definitions are vetted based on broadness?
  
  Vetted by whom?
  
  I just asked you that, pumpkin
  
  No you didn't.
  
  Can you not answer the question? I didnt think it was very hard. Did you not understand what you were asked?
  
  Did you not understand what you were asked?
  No. You haven't explained who is doing the vetting you're asking about, which is critical to answering.
  
  I asked you, pumpkin. Youre the one who answers. If I was answering my own questions, I wouldnt be talking to you.
  Do you need a pad of paper? Maybe some crayons? This isnt normally a difficult question.
  
  Provide a definition if you think my very broad description with a single example out of many possible examples is inaccurate.
  
  inaccurate
  What do you mean?
  
  You questioned whether I was just spouting an opinion, which would imply that it was inaccurate.
  Feel free to provide a definition.
  
  You questioned whether I was just spouting an opinion, which would imply that it was inaccurate.
  Would imply what was inaccurate?
  
  Imagine if you contributed to the discussion rather than did a poor attempt at the Socratic Method...

66 comments