In the United States, the national conference of Catholic bishops rejects the concept of gender transition, leaving many transgender Catholics feeling excluded.
He can claim that all he wants, while quietly telling clergy not to. Go to Latin America or anywhere in the Catholic third world and ask a priest to baptize a trans person, see how that goes for you
I think that’s part of why he is being so careful with language, it’s in line with him coming out to say homosexuality is not a crime earlier this year.
Hopefully this is just paving the way for further change but when the Church holds a lot of power in countries where lgbtq+ people are outlawed and heavily oppressed I can see why he’s slowly introducing ideas like it’s not against the law and being permissible to baptise.
I’m no fan of the RCC but if the pope quickly does a full 180 on these issues the church will likely fracture and the countries where things are pretty extreme will break away and, double down on the persecution and allow it to become an identity marker.
I’m a strong atheist, vehemently ex-Catholic, and a member of Team Rainbow, just so that no one thinks I’m defending indefensible things. And I agree that this is going to make little change in the behavior of most parishes, especially in heavily Catholic countries. I don’t think that’ll be due to the pope, though.
The Catholic Church has always taken an openly violent stance against LGBT people. They still do. I consider even the position of more liberal Catholics who take the position that it’s just like any other sin and can send you to hell but still reject all the social war stuff as wishing violence, although they’re not really problematic.
But Francis has gone out of his way more than any pope I can remember to be a progressive reformer. I’m not comparing it to Vatican II or anything, but it’s significant progress on issues like women and LGBT. He’s resisted by a lot of the politics of the church, but as the chief god-person he has some flexibility. So I think it’s less about him speaking one thing in public and another in private, and more about a conservative institution that will not implement his orders (such as they are).
He can claim that all he wants, while quietly telling clergy not to. Go to Latin America or anywhere in the Catholic third world and ask a priest to baptize a trans person, see how that goes for you
I think that’s part of why he is being so careful with language, it’s in line with him coming out to say homosexuality is not a crime earlier this year.
Hopefully this is just paving the way for further change but when the Church holds a lot of power in countries where lgbtq+ people are outlawed and heavily oppressed I can see why he’s slowly introducing ideas like it’s not against the law and being permissible to baptise.
I’m no fan of the RCC but if the pope quickly does a full 180 on these issues the church will likely fracture and the countries where things are pretty extreme will break away and, double down on the persecution and allow it to become an identity marker.
Maybe that will speed up the process of religion dying off
I’m a strong atheist, vehemently ex-Catholic, and a member of Team Rainbow, just so that no one thinks I’m defending indefensible things. And I agree that this is going to make little change in the behavior of most parishes, especially in heavily Catholic countries. I don’t think that’ll be due to the pope, though.
The Catholic Church has always taken an openly violent stance against LGBT people. They still do. I consider even the position of more liberal Catholics who take the position that it’s just like any other sin and can send you to hell but still reject all the social war stuff as wishing violence, although they’re not really problematic.
But Francis has gone out of his way more than any pope I can remember to be a progressive reformer. I’m not comparing it to Vatican II or anything, but it’s significant progress on issues like women and LGBT. He’s resisted by a lot of the politics of the church, but as the chief god-person he has some flexibility. So I think it’s less about him speaking one thing in public and another in private, and more about a conservative institution that will not implement his orders (such as they are).