back
17 comments
Important distinction: civil unions and not marriage "in God's eyes".

"In the 2013 book “On Heaven and Earth,” Pope Francis did not reject the possibility of civil unions outright, but did say that laws “assimilating” homosexual relationships to marriage are “an anthropological regression,” and he expressed concern that if same-sex couples “are given adoption rights, there could be affected children. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help them shape their identity.”" https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-calls-f...

Still a good step forward, but far from where we should aim to be.

Another important distinction: this is Francis voicing his opinion in a documentary, and not an official communiqué such as an apostolic constitution

The timing is interesting, though. Barrett's faith has been under intense scrutiny through the confirmation process. If the Catholic church moves on this issue, will she lose the support of evangelical voters?

Evangelicals are Protestant so they don't really care about Roman Catholic doctrine. Even though they agree on many issues it doesn't mean the Pope would change their minds.
I think you misread me. Barrett is Catholic, and has strong support from Evangelicals at this point: until now the religions are aligned on gay marriage and abortion. If they perceive a shift in how she is expected to rule on cases, will their support falter?
> Barrett is Catholic, and has strong support from Evangelicals at this point: until now the religions are aligned on gay marriage and abortion.

The activist politically conservative segment of the Catholic faithful tends to be in line with the political right and out of line with the Church heirarchy on a number of policy issues (just different issues than the activist left within the Church is, naturally), the heirarchy moving in a leftward direction on an issue where they were previously in line just adds one issue to that list, it doesn't move the position of conservative Catholic activists like Barret. Not in the short-term, and probably not much in the long term, except insofar as it increases the likelihood of such activists separating from the Church altogether (though, of course, from the PoV of such activists it will be the earthly heirarchy separating itself from the genuine Church), and thus no longer being regarded as Catholic conservatives.

> Another important distinction: this is Francis voicing his opinion in a documentary, and not an official communiqué such as an apostolic constitution

Apostolic constitutions are legislation, not communiqués. And (outside of the State of Vatican City), the papal legislative authority doesn't extend to the content of civil law, which is the subject matter here.

An exhortation on a matter like civil law which is prudential on its face but on which the moral teaching of the Church has important impacts would probably be addressed, in a more formal context, in a papal encyclical or apostolic exhortation.

EDIT [1] here's a very different perspective on its significance:

https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/1318970487242956801

EDIT [2] to merge a separate response:

> If the Catholic church moves on this issue, will she lose the support of evangelical voters?

While the politically activist Christian Right has made tactical alliance with conservative Catholics on many issues, anti-Catholicism is historically very strong among American evangelicals and fundamentalists, so, and neither politically liberal nor politically conservative Catholics in the electorate seem to move, and certainly not rapidly if they do at all, in response to policy shifts by the Church heirarchy, so I expect to have very little impact on the Barret confirmation, either the Senate process or public support one way or another for it.

As a conservative Evangelical myself (and former Catholic) I didn't find Francis's announcement shocking, nor did I disagree with it. I am strongly opposed to gay marriage, but not allowing gay civil unions is hard to justify. Can we really argue that because we are Christians we should get tax breaks and other legal privileges that certain (that is, homosexual) unbelievers are not entitled to?
> Another important distinction: this is Francis voicing his opinion in a documentary, and not an official communiqué such as an apostolic constitution

Exactly. This pope has said many controversial things. For example this: https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2020/04/pope-francis-censo...

Interesting departure.

Would be nice to see more religions start to take the tact of "we've got our beliefs but extending them to the state and denying other's legal protections is not a positive outcome / should not be our goal".

Granted this isn't QUITE that but this seems to be step in that direction / recognition that church policy as state policy has negative outcomes / is not desirable in some cases.

Isn't this position at odds with the Pope's previous statements regarding wealth inequality?

> Poverty can be overcome, said the Pope, if an economic system is put in place that includes, feeds, cures, and dresses those left behind by society. “We have to choose what and who to prioritize,” he said. Our choice will lead either to increased social injustice and violence, or to “humanizing socio-economic systems”.[0]

also

> And he condemned recurrent tax breaks for wealthy individuals as “structures of sin”. “Every year hundreds of millions of dollars – which should be collected as taxes and go to finance healthcare and education – instead end up in offshore accounts,” he said.[0]

In other words, the pope demands state action to address the issue of poverty, but shies away from supporting action on the "moral" question of homosexuality. You can certainly make humanist arguments for these positions, but it seems incoherent when viewed through the lens of church dogma.

[0]https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2020-02/pope-francis...

To be clear I think they're asking for state action as far as marriage goes too, even if only to extend legal protections to same sex partners.

They're just not asking for the church's view of 'marriage' to be the only route to those protections.

I apologize, I wasn't very precise in my wording there.

The parent post expressed approval of the Pope's support of civil unions. The pope, he said, was refusing to pressure the state to adopt a policy in line with church dogma (i.e. opposed to tacit approval of homosexuality by the state). This as though the Pope were embracing the separation of Church and State.

My point is, the Pope has a history of pressuring the state to support his religious/moral agenda (re: poverty) and has even gone beyond that to pressure the state on points outside of church dogma (re: his statements on wealth inequality and tax cuts). With that in mind, it seems odd that the Pope, who presumably believes in the infallibility of scripture[0], would feel that it was somehow wrong to pressure the state to support his moral agenda on the (alleged) sin of homosexuality (by opposing civil unions).

It makes perfect sense from a humanist perspective, but from the Pope it seems arbitrary and internally incoherent.

[0]https://uscatholic.org/articles/201611/is-the-bible-infallib...

The Church has longed argued against the literal interpretation of the Bible which has led to a lot of vitriol with Fundamentalists. The Church argues that they inherit their teaching authority as theirs is the seat of St Peter's which is something the Eastern Orthodox Church contests. Anyways, the Church teaches that God who is the creator of everything, has slowly revealed himself to man. It is man who misinterprets what God has revealed. Even the Catechism which is the summary document that contains Church doctrine may be re-written in the distant future.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s... 110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."

https://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp-FullTex... The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.

He's too late.

If the Church (and others) had taken that position 30 years ago, we might have ended up with a second class "civil union" situation. It would have been a compromise.

But same-sex marriage opponents didn't compromise. They gambled and lost. They opposed civil unions, and so there was no reason for same-sex marriage advocates to aim for anything less than full equality.

That turned out to have broad appeal, as more gay people came out of the closet and appeared as non-threatening characters on TV, and their relationships became normalized. There was just no reason to reject them, aside from religious dogma, and that's just not acceptable in a civil court.

So it's great that the Pope again acknowledges that gay people are people and that their relationships have merit. (He has said so before in other ways.) But if he wants to reserve the word "marriage" to be a thing that he controls, that is a ship that sailed. He's welcome to say that gay people aren't "married in the eyes of the Church", but countries have and will pay that zero mind.

Not sure you are going back far enough. This is a clearcut case of "Render unto Caesar". The church lost 200 years ago when governments got involved in marriage.
> The church lost 200 years ago when governments got involved in marriage.

Governments were involved with marriage long before there was a Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church was around long before it got involved in regulating marriage (which, again, governments already did.) OTOH, for quite a while in Western Europe, there wasn't a real dividing line between the Church and governments, and their roles regarding marriage as both a sacrament and a civil institution were deeply intertwined.

Recalling, however, that transgender people, such as myself, 'annihiliate Man as the image of God' (which seems to presuppose a lot about what gender God is but I digress).

He's tried to do some PR stunts lately with trans issues but hasn't actually moved on his position; basically just 'love the sinner hate the sin' 2020 edition.

Anyway. You might think that this is not an important asterisk to place on the Pope's ostensibly progressive behaviour; but that, too, is a decision, and implies a relative valuation of lives that you might not be comfortable with, were it made explicit.

Or maybe you would be! I've seen a lot. I have a lot of dead friends.