this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
909 points (96.8% liked)

World News

39050 readers
1771 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- People who act shocked that a priest would bless a gay couple but have no problem with him blessing a crooked businessman are hypocrites, Pope Francis said.

“The most serious sins are those that are disguised with a more ‘angelic’ appearance. No one is scandalized if I give a blessing to an entrepreneur who perhaps exploits people, which is a very serious sin. Whereas they are scandalized if I give it to a homosexual -- this is hypocrisy,” he told the Italian magazine Credere.

The interview was scheduled for publication Feb. 8, but Vatican News reported on some of its content the day before when the magazine issued a press release about the interview.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 110 points 9 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world 57 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Right? Credit where credit's due

[–] dipshit@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What do you think would happen if he just came out and blessed gay marriage?

[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

They’d claim he’s possessed by a demon and disappear him.

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dipshit@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

heaven isn’t real. literally all he has to do is come out and say “had a chat with god, turns out it was all a big misunderstanding. i bless gay marriage because being gay is ok!” the bar is so very low for him.

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Regardless, I'm fairly sure he would disagree with you, and I was discussing his motivations.

[–] dipshit@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

yeah because he’s a stupid, evil man. this is very easy for him.

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dipshit@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I hold leaders to a higher standard. you should too.

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dipshit@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

When the pope says he can’t bless gay marriage, is that not letting him hide behind his religion for his choices?

Unfortunately what he is doing is little better than “hate the sin love the sinner”.

homosexuality is not a sin.

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

When the pope says he can’t bless gay marriage, is that not letting him hide behind his religion for his choices?

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.

[–] dipshit@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Speaking as a baptized catholic myself (an apostile, appointed by god herself), since all of this is made up, and the pope is the leader, and talking to god is just making up thoughts in your head, there’s literally nothing real keeping him from coming out and blessing gay marriage. He doesn’t have to acknowledge the bigotry if he doesn’t want to, I think just blessing gay marriage himself would be enough.

I’m not kidding, I’m really catholic. And since the church counts all baptised catholics as catholic even in cases of excommunication, I’ll always be a catholic. You don’t speak for me, and I bless gay marriage!

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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).

[–] dipshit@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

But actions have consequences, so he doesn't, even if it might be the "better" course of action for humanity if he did.

  1. We can be critical of is action or inaction.
  2. These consequences are mythical and not relevant. I mean, do you think everyone’s going to just up and leave catholocism (good luck, literally no one can stop being a catholic, to the extent that their religion means anything)? Do you think they will take over the vatican? Do you think they will start sinning in other ways, like killing one another? Do you think catholics would go against what the pope has told them God has commanded?, really? I don’t. What am I missing here?

Because it wouldn't be the best course for his organization (at least from his perspective).

Because it’s his opinion, because he (*[via] God [or whatever]) sets the rules. You know what, I’ll write him about this. I realize he’s got other archdiocese reading and responding to him but as a catholic it’s one of my rights. I am all for meeting people where they are at, but.. it’s all but saying it, and until he does say it, he’s just giving people a way to win arguments claiming that homosexuality is a sin, making everyone their own lawyer trying to interpret what the pope is saying.

If this were a politician trying to sway congress that’s one thing, but is the vatican not functionally a dictatorship, with the pope at the top?

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Do you think catholics would go against what the pope has told them God has commanded?

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.

If this were a politician trying to sway congress that’s one thing, but is the vatican not functionally a dictatorship, with the pope at the top?

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.

[–] dipshit@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

tragedy

I don’t think catholics know what that word means. Not in this context they sure don’t.

This sounds like some “I don’t want to tell my kids about gay marriage because it’s going to make me mildly uncomfortable so I might as well demonize it”.

Yeah, I guess I have a lot more faith in the pope than you do. I know he can do it, but I also know he doesn’t care enough to do it. It’s just showing face. It’s trying to market a dying religion.

[–] dipshit@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

riiiiight. the pope would be insurrectioned. sure.

[–] dipshit@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I’m rooting for the little guy! maybe he can work his way up to a mortal position with some leverage.

[–] TheAlbacor@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TheAlbacor@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

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.