Pope approves blessings for same-sex couples if the rituals don't resemble marriage
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.
The document from the Vatican’s doctrine office, released Monday, elaborates on a letter Francis sent to two conservative cardinals that was published in October. In that preliminary response, Francis suggested such blessings could be offered under some circumstances if they didn’t confuse the ritual with the sacrament of marriage.
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.
But it says requests for such blessings should not be denied full stop. It offers an extensive definition of the term “blessing” in Scripture to insist that people seeking a transcendent relationship with God and looking for his love and mercy should not be subject to “an exhaustive moral analysis” as a precondition for receiving it.
"You can have our blessing but only during events that don't even resemble that thing you want to be more equivalent legally to hetero couples."
This just kind of seems disingenious. Like what is he saying? You either condone their marriages or you don't.
It's not disingenious. By the official scriptures, a religious marriage is between a man and a woman. A change like the current one needs already to be accepted by the highest cardinals, that have been in history notoriously fundamentalist.
A religious marriage is still not allowed. But the receiving of an "informal" blessing for future happiness and prosperity now is.
This is a necessary step to slowly allow more, that will come with the slow redefining and adaptation to modern times of the scriptures.
people don't know about Vatican 2 where they finally change mass from Latin to whatever the local language was in FUCKING 1962. I've been to Latin masses. I thought it was cool, but I'm glad they switched. My grandpa complained the church went pop with Vatican 2.
Vatican 2: The Ecumenicalling
The scriptures don't adapt, only their interpretation.
I think I covered this with "redefining"
That's untrue, scriptures have been adapted many many times. There's no one agreed upon definition of what the Bible even is, varying significantly between different sects of Christianity, and even more as we broaden to other Abrahamic religions. There's near endless variations of the different texts. Translation, copying, and selection of which texts to include in a scripture is inevitably bound up in interpretations, they're inseparable. New ideas, biases, agendas, and shifts in meaning will work their way into the translation or copying of older texts or what sources to derive the translations from. Words don't stay the same over time in any language and are constantly shifting in meanings.
Now some religious people may say, God inspires the people who select what religious texts to use, their copying, and their translations, to ensure perfect unchanging meaning over time. But outside of invoking miracles this is an impossibility. But this is what people who take a literal interpretation of the Bible believe.
Barring miracles though, start with development and history section below if interested, but there's countless opportunities for the scriptures to have changed, and they are still changing. There's no way they couldn't, language itself wouldn't let it stay static no matter how much effort is put in to it, not even thinking of all the other factors and agendas that have changed them or what they even consist of many times over thousands of years. There's no one definitive Bible that sprang fully formed out of some vacuum, and even if that somehow occured it'd have to drift overtime with language itself.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible
Makes you wonder why God has the power to inspire people to correct issues but not the power to stop issues to begin with. Wouldn't an all knowing being know the exact problems his human pets would have?
We're using the word "adapted" in different ways. There may be no authoritative bible text but texts which are considered to be bibles don't change in response to their environment. They may be rewritten or translated but the originals are still the originals.
No I'm using it the same way. What I'm saying is there is no such thing as an "original" Bible text, and even if there was people don't all agree what those texts should be or which versions of those texts to begin from. And even if they did there'd be no way to perfectly preserve their meaning over the many of thousands of years they developed. And the re interpretations at every step along the way will influence how they get passed down and rewritten. Our current versions of all the many different religious texts are all a part of a long process of evolution, some even with common ancestors. Meanings, connotations, words, passages, entire books, and all sorts of things change at every step for many different reasons. They didn't just appear suddenly out of nowhere. Many started even as an oral tradition.
I never said there was. And the existence of more than one accepted scripture doesn't contradict what I said. Each of those scriptures will not adapt to its environment.
Again, we're talking about different things. You're talking about long periods of time where human civilisation develops, where scriptures are translated, reinterpreted, etc. into new scriptures. I'm saying that the King James Bible of the 1950s was the same King James Bible of the 1970s and didn't adapt in response to the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
The king James Bible of 1611? The version specifically made to emphasize the divine rights and absolute authority of kings? Sure sounds a lot like the text adapting to the times to me. And do you understand the meanings and context of English from the 17th century? The answer is no, no one does perfectly, the meaning of that text to you will be different to someone reading in the 17th century than to you because the language has changed. Experts could make surmises based on other writings at the time. Ultimately though newer versions will need to be made, that will inevitably be bound up in the current religious interpretations and linguistics background of the one doing that. The texts change in response to our interpretation over time, they don't sit still, it's impossible. They are all an ongoing evolution that has been and is still happening.
So not the same scriptures then.
New texts being created is not the same thing as changing texts. People don't go around with a pen and update pages.
They do change, otherwise we'd have the exact same Bible as we did a thousand years ago which isn't the case. And if you read a Bible from a thousand years ago, it no longer means the same thing as it did to someone from a thousand years ago. If the hill you want to die on is, the shape of the letters on the page of a particular version's pages stay the same over time. Then fine. But a scripture is made of language which has to change over time. So for any practical purposes the texts are changing over time. Take any cursory examination at the history of religious texts including the Bible and you'll see morphing over time for tons of different reasons. Politics often involved! And our current interpretations, linguistics, and cultural understandings and contexts will absolutely inform how the Bible and any religious text (or any text for that matter) continues to change over time, just as it always has.
Again, we're talking about different things.
I'm making the time scales bigger to make the changes more obvious to you. But it's not something that has a start and stop point and suddenly our current version of the Bible froze in time never to change again. You said new editions don't count but then said people don't carry around a pen changing them. But that's exactly what the new editions are. You can't just read the old versions because that's a different language than it is now, you won't get the same meaning as what that language meant when it was written. You can try and translate to current language, but something will always be lost and changes will have to be made in some regard or other, especially for non current languages, and how you do that and the choices you make in that new edition will depend on many factors, including their own religious interpretations. Even fifty years ago English is a different language, just not as much as a thousand. Our current religious texts are continuing to change over time, just as they always done in the past, for many different reasons including the impermenance of language itself. And that process has happened many many times and is still happening. That's the point. If the text of scriptures stayed the same over time we wouldn't have so many endless versions of so many different religious texts, some of which even started out as the same story if you go far back enough. To say, the text of the Bible doesn't change, is just untrue unless you really stretch the definitions of what that would mean to a meaningless place.
Ranvier is completely correct. There is no definite version of the bible even if you went back to the original languages. If you add up all the text variations that are known as of today the number exceeds the number of total words in the NT. And when you add in translation issues the problem is endless. Plus all the stuff that looks like it was never in there originally, like the endings of Mark or the Adultress in John. The Bible is like a much dumber version of Wikipedia.
I don't know if you're a Catholic or not, I just want to say more generally - I don't see how any Catholic, including the pope, has the right to opine on the finer points of official scriptures while priests are raping children and the church covers it up.
The Pope is not a global censuring big brother. You have to point to your state/country's Christian representation if it has any power in the media or politics.
You might also want to generalize that a priest of any religion can be problematic.
Nobody should be raping children. Roman Catholic priests have done this, are doing this, and the Roman Catholic church has a long and ongoing history of covering it up. If the head of the Roman Catholic church fails to stop it, they're blameworthy.
Something a pope could easily promise, but never will:
Any church that isn't afraid of raking in money in envelopes, but is afraid of making a commitment like the above, is a problem, yep, I agree. There's no excuse. Saying the pope doesn't have the power to do this is mealymouthed and also, incorrect.
Bullshit. The Pope has been gaining control of the US. He already has Supreme Court.
For this to work you have to take on a catholic perspective. For them a marriage isn’t just a legal affirmation of partnership with tax advantages, it is a clearly defined sacrament that is explicitly for a man and a woman. They can’t just change that, it’s a defined fundamental element of the religion.
This radical change in doctrine (from a catholic perspective) is basically them trying to work around the fixed framework that has no room for interpretation, while still wanting to be more accepting. So they create a second marriage for non heterosexual couples.
As an atheist I must say this seems like a significant step. The church still has numerous flaws and isn’t for me, but I definitely commend this olive branch.
I guess I'm just cynical or something because they need to makeup a new special hang out because the old one is only for people with specific genitals. Its just weird man, that the apparent source of all love would lock it with barbed wire.
Then the religion isn't for you. It's not for me either. The fact that there are so many hoops to jump through, simply to satisfy the world's worst library of Bronze and Iron age fanfic nonsense, makes me shake my head at the whole exercise.
The fact remains though, that it's incredibly important to a lot of people, and if they want to try to square the circle in a way that tends towards justice, then I'm not going to come down hard on them. Pick your battles and whatnot.
Just look at the change that already happened. Just a good decade ago the official catholic position was that non heterosexuals are living in sin and will go to hell, they are not welcome in churches and they won’t be blessed.
Now it’s gods love shows in many ways, he should judge and not the church, and everyone who seeks to be blessed can get officially garried by them in holy gatrimony.
Is it really so bad they try to loophole to stay in line with the scripture?
No I'm happy for the change. The article says the ceremony just can't resemble a wedding. Thats what still got me. But you're right. This is good and I need to not be as cynical.
This is a straw man. The pope's decision is about a religious issue, not a legal issue.
Except married couples get legal benefits that actually matter in reality that same-sex couples don't get. So its not a strawman. It is shit that actually happens to real people.
You don't get legal beneficts from having a religious marriage. Only for a legal marriage, that is always possible unless your state is a behind hell hole
Furthermore, it has always been possible to get a religious wedding (certain churches only), even before it could be a legal marriage.
Entirely depends on where you live. Where I do, that is illegal to the extent that it simply has no value. You just don't show as married to the state, and you will get in a burocracy mess if you try to do ANYTHING as a couple
The value would be, that church considers you married in the eyes of God, irrelevant of what human laws say. Not that I believe in any such god, but I remember gay people who got married in their Quaker church, and within their spiritual circle they were treated as married like any other married couple. Of course it didn't count for anything in the secular world.
Of course meant a civil value. Of course in the religion that marriage has been practiced tp it will have its own spiritual one.
Arent these religious ceremonies legally binding? Isn't the catholic church donating to causes to illegalize same-sex marriage? This are serious questions no sass intended tbh
If you don't know then why are you arguing about it?
I'm not arguing I'm asking. I say so in my comment. We're on a discussion board, where we discuss things.
You said, as part of this discussion, before asking your question:
Why did you state that married couples get benefits that same-sex couples don't get if you didn't know what you were saying was true?
When it is illegal for same-sex couples to marry that it was one the things they miss out on. Which, according to this article, is still not legally recognized in Vatican City. It seems I do indeed have a point, as it says here their relationship status is not recognized by the Vatican City. Did you see that it said they are not recognized in Vatican City? Legally? Would you agree that it is important that your government legally recognizes your marriage?
It seems then that you were comparing married couples with same-sex couples who were not in a legally recognised life partnership, such as a civil partnership in the UK. Which makes no sense. I think it's safe to assume that the vast majority of people one interacts with on Lemmy will live in a jurisdiction where same-sex life partnerships are legally recognised.
is a backward city-state and is no way representative of contemporary Western democracies.
They are not legally binding. You need a separate civil marriage.
In the US, a religious figure often has a proper certification and can also provide civil marriage (to streamline the process) or you can have it done separately.
In other countries you actually need to have two ceremonies (typically done on the same day).
Thank you, I have been outside the US but I don't think I have ever seen a wedding in detail in another culture so I was unsure of the legal aspects of these ceremonies.
The religious ceremony has no legal bearing at all, which is why in order to get married legally you have to go to the local government and get a marriage certificate. You can have the city ordain your marriage right in the civic center, no religion required.
That is true in the US, but there are many counties where religious marriage is legal marriage.
You mean in theocracies? I don't think they allow gay marriages anyway.
I believe Canada allows religious marriage (you don’t have to get a marriage license in that case, it’s not a civil ceremony).
Edit: you can also have a civil marriage ceremony, which is also legally valid
At least in Italy, a religious marriage is legally bidining as much as a civil marriage because it is a byproduct of such.
For a civil marriage only, one only needs to show certain documentation, and the only requirement is both to be Italians, be 18 years old or more and both not already civil married (no gender requirements).
A religious marriage is not valid unless a civil marriage is iniciated first, where the rules of the religion of both partecipants are followed and applied in this case. Mixed religions/beliefs are allowed too, but they usually come with extra rules (for example, a marriage between a atheist and a chatolic is possible in a christian church as long as the atheist signs a swear to allow future children from the marriage to receive the chatholic education)
The choice of only a civil marriage or the added religious marriage brings the same rights and duties in the Italian law.
Also, about the second question.
No, the church isn't doing such donations. Maybe the local one in your country, but the church of the Vatican City has lost all political influence by also being its own country with its own political background. In Italian law, the separation of church and state is clearly defined and becoming even more defined with the slow change in the religion lesson in every school changing their now 1 hour per week dedicated to it from teaching christianity to either history of the religions in the world or debate lesson.
The churches in my area do donate heavily but they are mostly Mormon. Thank you for the explanation, and everyone else that replied too. All the churches in my area are so heavily involved in politics that they are always decorated in political messaging. So I figured thats how most churches are.
No. There's the civil registry office (translated right?), where you go for the legal marriage. And then there's the marriage party with guest, which can be religious. At least in most of Europe and US, might be different in your country.
That's going to be dependent on jurisdiction. In e.g. Germany church weddings have no legal meaning whatsoever, that has been the case since 1874 when Prussia wrestled everything regarding civil status from the Church. Long story short everything regarding birth, marriage, and death is done by the Standesamt, a municipal office, they keep all the certificates and notarise any changes (not to be confused with the Einwohnermeldeamt which is also often translated "registry office", but deals with registering your address with the municipality as well as everything passport and ID card related). It's not a strict "signature and rubber stamp only" thing, they're amenable to moderate amounts of ceremony, as well as when it comes to venue.
Back when civil law only knew opposite-sex marriages and registered partnerships Lutheran Churches already offered ceremonies to same-sex couples, same exact thing as a marriage ceremony with same theological meaning (promise before god and the congregation, followed by a blessing), what they couldn't agree on is whether to call it a marriage or a blessing. The conservatives were, bluntly put, worried that some poor angel somewhere would have to re-do all the paperwork. Theologically of course the whole thing is easier in Lutheranism as marriage isn't a sacrament. Remember that Catholics, to this day, don't even divorce people -- best you can get is an annulation, "there's never been a marriage in the first place and everything has been a mistake".
That's not the case in the UK.
It's probably not the case where you live either.
It is the case in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/marriage-allowance
Dafuq are you talking about? It's not the case in the UK. Quoting directly from the page you linked to:
That married couples do get legal benefits in the UK that unmarried couples don't?
You're wrong. As shown by the source you yourself gave.
Mm, no you just missed the point of it, but crack on I guess.
I disagree.
I respect your right to do so
One clear legal benefit came up recently for me and my wife. She was in the hospital for several days. As her legal wife I was given certain medical information that would only go to next of kin. Before we got married we were not legal next of kin, and in fact that's the reason we got married.
Smart of you two to give in and marry. I was with my better half for years without the paper. It just got to difficult dealing with all stuff. Immigration, inheritance law, shared banking accounts. People know how to deal with married couples they don't know how to deal with couples that are married in all but name.
This is the woman I love. I don't need some fucking shaman or some government stooge to define or approve or be involved in our relationship.
I fully agree with you, don't need anyone else defining my relationship. Neither government nor religion. 38 years ago she first asked me to marry her and I said no, I will never marry. We went back and forth on that issue over the decades, but as we enter old age, it just seemed wise.
You got married? In a religious ceremony in a Christian church? Or you had a civil ceremony and are now in a civil partnership?
In the US where I live, a civil ceremony is a legal marriage, and that's what we did, right at the courthouse. Previously we were in a domestic partnership, which required no ceremony just signing the papers, and gave us many of the legal rights of marriage. I'm not a Christian, nor a member of any major religion, so I would not avail myself of that type of religious ceremony anyway.
South Park covered this by calling them Butt Buddies
Slippery Slope! What's next, being respectful and accepting of people who aren't hurting us??
That doesn't sound Christian to me.
This is a PR move, don't fall for it.
Quotes from the man himself, on how much he actually supports marriage equality and LGBTQ peolle:
"I cannot hide my concern for the family, which is threatened, perhaps as never before, from within and without. Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family. I can only reiterate the importance and, above all, the richness and the beauty of family life."
"What is at stake here is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother, and children. At stake are the lives of so many children who will be discriminated against in advance, depriving them of the human maturation that God wanted to be given with a father and a mother."
"[Marriage equality] is not a political struggle; it is the destructive attempt toward God’s plan."
"”[The push for marriage equality is] the envy of the Devil, by which sin entered the world, which cunningly seeks to destroy the image of God."
Don't fall for their lies.
Yep - this is just derogatory and demeaning, underlining the exclusion in order to make it hurt more.
If anyone doesn't see it - just replace 'same-sex' with 'black'.
Fine, we'll let you in the building, but only in the basement, and you don't touch anything the white folk might want to use.
Sky daddy says it’s cool as long as it doesn’t look like one of Sky-Daddy-Approved™️ shows
Don't worry, officer. I'm not buying poppers and bongs, I'm buying videotape head cleaner and water pipes. Totally different.
What a fucking insult.
They're so close to getting it. All they needed to say was "None of us are born without sin, and it is no person's position to judge and condemn others. Thus, we will marry any two individuals who show the same enduring love for each other as our lord and savior --"
Etc etc.
I see what you mean, but I disagree that this is a misfire or miscalculation on the church's part. This latest development reads as another jab at gay people, from a familiar angle. It's a reaffirmation by the church that same sex couples who love each other aren't seen as equals in a congregation.
Oh I agree completely. It's not a miscommunication, but evidence that they're just paying lip service.
If this isn't the definition of "too little too late", I don't know what is.
📉
I, the loud proud atheist, have literally been to a religious services more the past year (a memorial service, relative of my wife) than the typical American adult.
The world is getting better in a few ways.
For many Italians it's too much and too early 🤣 Maybe they will turn to more conservative confessions like orthodoxy, who knows...
Awaiting U.S. Bishops to refuse to allow this.
Instead of being referred to as “married” you can be butt buddies!
"Sorry man, you can't get married but good luck.
P.S; you're going to hell"
Okay, whatever.
Let's say I create a club (I'm picturing Calvin's "Girl Haters" club). I can make whatever rules I want for my club. I can define ceremonies and rituals, and I can kick anyone out who doesn't follow my rules. What I can't do is tell anyone else what they can do.
So the Pope can say whatever he wants about what it means to be Catholic, but only Catholics should care.
I'd agree with you but for the fact that the Catholic Church has historically spent a ton of money lobbying to keep same-sex marriage illegal.
The Catholic Church is very much a political institution.
It would be nice if we didn't have to pay attention to regressive extremists, but they are unfortunately very influential.
Oh, completely agree. My statement was just trying to constrain how much we should care as a society. It shouldn't mean more than that.
I get where you're coming from. At the same time, they are such a large club that this will impact many people....some members of the club hold political positions around the world, for instance.
Yep, true enough. The first part I don't care to much about - if your club has rules you don't like, leave the club. The second part is problematic because some clubs think even non-members should follow their rules.
Yup, definitely.
I've learned that some people aren't good at making ethical decisions, and actually use religion as a moral compass. So they might not disagree with any anti-gay rules, but will still follow any pro-gay rules.
I didn't think people were serious when they asked "If you don't get your morals from religion, where do they come from?". Some are. They genuinely don't get it.
I agree, it's scary. I attribute it to parents who tell their kids they shouldn't do something "because God said so," and never any other reason. They never try to reason out what's moral or not, they just memorize the list.
I have a friend who's the nicest guy ever. He's also 6'5" and completely ripped. A lot of years ago, I was telling him about my transition from devout Catholic to atheist, and at one point I told him I realized if you could prove to me there was a god, I wouldn't live my life differently than if you could prove there was; I have beliefs of what's right and what's wrong, and I try to behave accordingly, regardless of any deity. That confused him and I didn't understand his confusion. I finally said, okay, if I proved to you there wasn't a god, what would you go differently? He thought for a minute, then said, "Well, I might kill someone."
There are few times in my life that I've been speechless, but that was one. I didn't know how to move forward from there. I just hope his faith is never shaken.
Some people literally never develop those parts of the brain. It doesn't mean they're stupid or disabled or anything (at least not by current definitions), but this is why we need things like laws and even religion.
I do think with most people who never develop that, it's because that part was never exercised growing up. It's like a muscle: if you don't use it it won't develop. There are probably people who have brain defects that are incapable of developing a moral compass, but it's rare. That friend of mine is a really smart guy - aerospace software engineer - but for him, morality is 100% tired to the (strict) Christian religion he was raised with.
Sounds like the Pope needs to mind his own fucking business.
How generous.
Archbishop Handwich is now offering blessings for the low, low price of $9.95. Act now and get free chips and pickle!
I mean, indulgences were a large part about why Martin Luther split from the church to begin with.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
ROME (AP) — 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.
The document from the Vatican’s doctrine office, released Monday, elaborates on a letter Francis sent to two conservative cardinals that was published in October.
In that preliminary response, Francis suggested such blessings could be offered under some circumstances if they didn’t confuse the ritual with the sacrament of marriage.
It offers an extensive definition of the term “blessing” in Scripture to insist that people seeking a transcendent relationship with God and looking for his love and mercy should not be subject to “an exhaustive moral analysis” as a precondition for receiving it.
“The request for a blessing, thus, expresses and nurtures openness to the transcendence, mercy, and closeness to God in a thousand concrete circumstances of life, which is no small thing in the world in which we live.”
In the new document, the Vatican said the church must shy away from “doctrinal or disciplinary schemes, especially when they lead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying.”
The original article contains 478 words, the summary contains 228 words. Saved 52%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Fuck that guy.
I love this shit. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they stick to dogma they become irrelevant, if they water their rules down to “allow” same-sex couples they appear hypocritical, and irrelevant. Either way they lose, which is better all round for society.