Pope calls for same sex 'civil union' laws.

[afleitch]

www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/pope-francis-calls-for-civil-union-law-for-same-sex-couples-in-shift-from-vatican-stance-12462

'In a documentary that premiered Wednesday in Rome, Pope Francis called for the passage of civil union laws for same-sex couples...

“Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it,” Pope Francis said in the film, of his approach to pastoral care.

“What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered,” the pope said. “I stood up for that.”'

---

While I expect heavy 'clarification', this is quite a significant statement even if every aspect of social conscience is rung out of it by the Vatican at a later point.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This would of course be a backtracking in places like the US and much of Latin America, but in conservative Catholic societies elsewhere in the Global South and even in Italy itself it's a green light for a pretty significant step.

So yeah, this is a big f**king deal even given that the CDF or the Sala Stampa will probably play it down bigly.

ETA: America magazine (a source less given to stirring up controversy around Francis than CNA is) confirms.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Wow?
Pope Francis is so based

---

While I expect heavy 'clarification', this is quite a significant statement even if every aspect of social conscience is rung out of it by the Vatican at a later point.

What do you mean by this?

This would of course be a backtracking in places like the US and much of Latin America, but in conservative Catholic societies elsewhere in the Global South and even in Italy itself it's a green light for a pretty significant step.

??

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This would of course be a backtracking in places like the US and much of Latin America, but in conservative Catholic societies elsewhere in the Global South and even in Italy itself it's a green light for a pretty significant step.

??

I didn't realize Italy already had civil unions. For some reason I thought it was still in the "registered cohabitation" stage.

[KaiserDave]

This is without a doubt big news.

[afleitch]

What do you mean by this?

There's a tendency in some Christians to discredit what's in front of them. So the happy, long term married gay couple isn't 'right' isn't 'really in love' isn't 'God's plan' if that love is displayed in front of them in the same manner as straight couples. Even if it goes on for decades, through illness and broken by death. It's a conscious choice to close your eyes and to judge the value of love not on love itself, but whom it comes from. And it ends up becoming not only more difficult but more absurd to maintain in the social sphere as each year passes.

I think if you have a social conscience you can see love and it's value in wider society, regardless of your personal views. What the Church has done is through curated language, what is said and unsaid either crassly sexualised same sex love in order to dismiss it, or debased and dehumanised it by calling it 'disordered' or a 'moral evil'.

What's different about this statement is that it's an understanding that not only can gays be part of the family, but they can establish families. Now that doesn't mean the Church is going to go whole hog on supporting same sex couples having children but it's a very tacit acceptance that same sex couples exist. That together they are something more than just individuals and that this 'togetherness' is real. It might not be accepted or endorsed but it's real. And it's a family.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

This would of course be a backtracking in places like the US and much of Latin America, but in conservative Catholic societies elsewhere in the Global South and even in Italy itself it's a green light for a pretty significant step.

??

I didn't realize Italy already had civil unions. For some reason I thought it was still in the "registered cohabitation" stage.

Ah sorry. Yes, we have since 2016. The good times of the spicy Tuscan woke neoliberal Renzi government...

[Santander]

This would of course be a backtracking in places like the US and much of Latin America, but in conservative Catholic societies elsewhere in the Global South and even in Italy itself it's a green light for a pretty significant step.

So yeah, this is a big f**king deal even given that the CDF or the Sala Stampa will probably play it down bigly.

ETA: America magazine (a source less given to stirring up controversy around Francis than CNA is) confirms.

Legally speaking, yes, but as far as the church's recognition of same-sex partnerships is concerned, it's a massive step forward.

[7,052,770]

TRADCATH TEARS.gif

[RI]

Ironically, it seems much of the resistance to civil unions among Catholics comes from a consequentialist perspective, i.e. "if we do permit civil unions, it will lead to..." x, y, and z unrelated to civil unions. But from a deontological point of view, why would permitting contracts which confer taxation and asset privileges, visitation rights, custodial rights, etc. be illict? The creation of corporations, trusts, powers of attorney, guardianships, etc. do exactly the same thing and are clearly licit.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

TRADCATH TEARS.gif

Bad last few news cycles for radtrad issues between this and the pachamamista landslide in Bolivia.

[afleitch]

Ironically, it seems much of the resistance to civil unions among Catholics comes from a consequentialist perspective, i.e. "if we do permit civil unions, it will lead to..." x, y, and z unrelated to civil unions. But from a deontological point of view, why would permitting contracts which confer taxation and asset privileges, visitation rights, custodial rights, etc. be illict? The creation of corporations, trusts, powers of attorney, guardianships, etc. do exactly the same thing and are clearly licit.

Yes. Same sex unions, and why people enter into them are clearly the same as establishing corporations...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Ironically, it seems much of the resistance to civil unions among Catholics comes from a consequentialist perspective, i.e. "if we do permit civil unions, it will lead to..." x, y, and z unrelated to civil unions. But from a deontological point of view, why would permitting contracts which confer taxation and asset privileges, visitation rights, custodial rights, etc. be illict? The creation of corporations, trusts, powers of attorney, guardianships, etc. do exactly the same thing and are clearly licit.

Yes. Same sex unions, and why people enter into them are clearly the same as establishing corporations...

It's RI, he's not the sort of poster I expect to prioritize the "human touch" on this sort of issue.

[°Leprechaun]

I wonder what ACB will think about this.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

It will be interesting to see if support for Sedevacantism increases significantly.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It will be interesting to see if support for Sedevacantism increases significantly.

Much of the Catholic right has cracked the code (as did much of the Catholic left several decades ago) for how to completely reject or relativize the Pope without becoming sedevacantists, so I doubt it.

[Red Velvet]

This would of course be a backtracking in places like the US and much of Latin America, but in conservative Catholic societies elsewhere in the Global South and even in Italy itself it's a green light for a pretty significant step.

So yeah, this is a big f**king deal even given that the CDF or the Sala Stampa will probably play it down bigly.

ETA: America magazine (a source less given to stirring up controversy around Francis than CNA is) confirms.

Technically speaking yes, since I already can get married for 7 years at this point and the pope is defending only civil unions, not marriage. Also many advances happened legally in the last decade, such as the criminalization of homophobia and allowance for gay males to donate blood. If 10 years ago conservative agenda was focused on not letting gay civil unions pass (happened in 2011, marriage in 2013), nowadays the thing they talk about is reversing criminalization of homophobia because it affects their “religious freedom”.

So a lot has changed in a decade. However, this will certainly be good for those prejudiced people who still use religion as an argument to discriminate against homosexuals. If even the POPE disagrees with you, the argument that gays and Catholic values are not compatible becomes even more outdated and may make some few reflect on their positions, even if many conservatives will just attribute this happening only due to “this Papa being an infiltrated communist”.

But yes, it’s especially important for countries that are still yet to approve gay marriage or civil union. Italy and Poland are the first example that come to mind but it’s basically any country with a strong Christian influence.

[Alben Barkley]

I feel a great disturbance in the force, as if millions of Trad Caths suddenly cried out in terror “REEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!”

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

TRADCATH TEARS.gif

Bad last few news cycles for radtrad issues between this and the pachamamista landslide in Bolivia.

Don't forget Unbeatable Titan Susanna Ceccardi exactly one month ago.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Ironically, it seems much of the resistance to civil unions among Catholics comes from a consequentialist perspective, i.e. "if we do permit civil unions, it will lead to..." x, y, and z unrelated to civil unions. But from a deontological point of view, why would permitting contracts which confer taxation and asset privileges, visitation rights, custodial rights, etc. be illict? The creation of corporations, trusts, powers of attorney, guardianships, etc. do exactly the same thing and are clearly licit.

     But is Catholic moral teaching strictly deontological? I know Catholicism is definitely not consequentialist as a rule, but it seems like the observation that X will tend to produce undesirable outcomes cannot be entirely discounted.

[windjammer]

I loved the catholic church before and I still love it after this decision.

(and of course I support this decision)

[Edu]

Good. But the peronist pope is still trash

[Red Velvet]

Good. But the peronist pope is still trash

I feel proud that the pope proposing so many socially progressive reforms for the Catholic Church is the first Latin American pope, I can’t understand how most Argentinians I see talking about him don’t feel a much larger sense of pride when he comes on the news, even considering political differences. I mean, it’s basically Argentina changing the world for better in some ways!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This is great to see and comes across as a pretty unambiguous endorsement that can't be wordsmithed away, but it just hit me that this is something that could, in theory, easily be undone by Pope Francis's successor, depending on who that might be. Speculating on such is probably close to impossible, but this looks like the type of move that could inspire some backlash in the years to come.

Hopefully by the next papal conclave, it will be obvious that the Church stands more to lose by reneging on this than by electing someone who at least isn't overtly hostile to this type of message.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In the historical context of the Roman Catholic Church this is arguably a 'conservative' move: measured adjustments to non-core doctrine to move the institution into line with ever-altering social mores being the way that it has operated for centuries.