Pope Leo Chooses Social Justice Over Pelvic Theology
Posted by BendicantMias@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 30 comments
"The unity or division of the Church should not revolve around sexual matters," Leo said in a press conference, answering a question about how the Church considers same-sex marriage.
"I believe there are much greater and more important issues such as justice, equality... that would all take priority before that particular issue," he said.
Even more recently the Pontiff released a major encyclical warning about the dangers of AI - https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html
imunfair@reddit
Modern Catholicism has always had the problem of attracting gay priests due to the marriage rules, which makes it a sticky situation for the Pope to be theologically conservative now that it's socially acceptable to be out of the closet. Thirty years ago it was a much easier conflicting ideology for them to handle since the priests just didn't admit to it.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
Depends on what his market is. It's socially acceptable in some places, very much not in others. Catholicism isn't exactly thriving in the west to begin with, and notably the Pope's first world tour was of Africa. While it slowly declines in the west, Africa and Asia are the growing markets for the Church. And both continents mostly consist of countries where homosexuality is still very much in the closet. So he could very well just wash his hands off the western controversy as a battle not worth fighting. And indeed he hasn't changed church doctrine here, merely de-prioritized some aspects in favor of others.
historicusXIII@reddit
And to add to that, I want to emphasize that in Africa and Asia, Christianity is growing. Not necessarily Catholicism. The Catholic church has to contend with protestant, mostly evangelical churches that can freely hammer down on conservative ethics. Even in Latin America the Catholic faith is slowly being replaced by Protestantism. Rome has much to lose with a focus on culture war issues.
CLAPtrapTHEMCHEEKS@reddit
You might be correct but I am prompted to wonder if Christianity as a whole is on the rise or not. If catholicism has less of the pie, then consider making the pie bigger. most young people that abandon or choose not to inherit the church do so because of social issues so if you are only worried about growing the amount of believers, then making new ones instead of converting existing ones makes sense to me, but idk
historicusXIII@reddit
I'm not sure if they're growing as a share of the population, but in absolute numbers they're growing. Islam is growing a bit faster though.
LeftieDu@reddit
Does it actually matter that much, though? Catholic priests are supposed to be celibate either way. From the Church’s perspective, the forbidden part is sex outside the rules, not simply being attracted to someone.
So whether a priest is gay or straight doesn’t really change the practical expectation: he is not supposed to be in a sexual relationship with anyone. The bigger issue seems to be hypocrisy, secrecy, and the Church using sexuality as a political weapon while pretending it is only theology. And that last one seems to be actually changing here.
_PM_ME_PANGOLINS_@reddit
There at least was an issue with gay men becoming priests just because they’re gay, and not because they actually feel a call to be priests. Being a single man was stigmatised in a lot of places, and priesthood was a respectable excuse.
Crouteauxpommes@reddit
A lot of gay priests had no problems with the celibacy part. They would have chosen celibacy even if they didn't became priests because they don't want to fake an heterosexual marriage.
But for those who already had an interest for philosophy or theology, becoming a priest was for them a natural path.
imunfair@reddit
It matters because now it's an open point of contention whereas before the sex was hidden behind a guise of celibacy. It's hard to take a theological stand against something if the congregation is ideologically split on it, but basically impossible when the clergy participate in it themselves - at least without a purge of the church, and good luck finding a pontiff that's going to take on that level of change especially when he has to be elected by those very same clergy.
rode111@reddit
I might just be a cynical cunt, but I read it more as Leo kicking the can down the road. To me what hi is saying is "Homosexuality can wait right now, because WORLD LEADERS ARE ABOUT TO GET US ALL KILLED, WHICH WOULD MAKE THE DEBATE ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY, AND EVERY OTHER DISPUTE, POINTLESS!!!".
_PM_ME_PANGOLINS_@reddit
That is exactly what he’s saying, and I’m not sure how anyone could interpret it different.
The church’s position on homosexuality hasn’t changed, and likely never will, but it’s not important right now with all the other worse stuff going on.
Stickppl@reddit
On the other hand, if he were to change is position I reckon he would do it gradually. And maybe first by making it to seem like a less important matter
HitheroNihil@reddit
If he's part of the camp of change (and I hope so), then it would be an extreme uphill battle even if all the conservative elements in the Church stepped back and let him make his case.
It would first require unraveling Scripture and centuries of Tradition in order to make sure that new teachings don't go against previous teachings, because the Church insists it teaches Truth, and Truth cannot contradict itself. So they frame it as "clarifying" previous teachings in light of newer understanding. But they still need to make sure said contradictions don't rise up in the first place.
If that step is finally accomplished, then the Church can move forward and convene an ecumenical council to address it. There's already some talk about a potential "Vatican III", and while I don't think it would happen so soon, it is possible to be brought up as something to discuss for the foreseeable future. Either way, the council is the best theologians of our time will debate whether such an argument holds any water. Strong potential likelihood for schisms, no matter how optimistic such proceedings go.
At the end of the day, this is mainly an internal thing for the Church. If they are to decide on something, it has to be in the interest of the faithful under Jesus Christ, not because the secular world told you so. That being said, I hope it's being contemplated behind closed doors. I wouldn't expect it to happen in a lifetime, though.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
Otoh he recently outright apologized for the Churchs' involvement in slavery. That isn't 'clarifying' anything, that's straight up admitting wrongdoing and asking for pardon.
slapdashbr@reddit
maybe they should give up on claiming papal infallability
HitheroNihil@reddit
Papal infallibility is a doctrine that basically says the Pope is protected from being wrong if he's speaking in "ex cathedra" (which means "from the chair"). While it might just sound like the Pope saying he can't be wrong because he says so, it's more theologically nuanced than that. And for what it's worth, only two* "ex cathedra" statements have ever been made, both are which clarify dogma about the Blessed Mary.
*There are technically more but me and a buddy of mine are still trying to learn more about it.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
Then how would they claim to represent god? That'd be tantamount to saying that either they have no special insight to the almighty, or that god is fallible.
slapdashbr@reddit
idk lol im Presbyterian
HitheroNihil@reddit
Yeah, but that's not really not the same thing here. The Church teaches the dignity of all people, that's a Truth it insists on. Slavery, however, existed before and during the early Church, so it had a varying relationship with slavery. On one hand, the Church would buy up slaves to free them from slavery, while on the other hand, the Church would support the colonial subjugation of South America under Spain and Portugal. I believe the Pope is apologizing for complicity in that, which is respectable admittance of human error especially for the clergy, but what I said about "Truth not contradicting Truth" still applies to how the Catholic Church handles its own theology.
LeftieDu@reddit
I think that’s a bit of an uncharitable reading, though an understandable one given the Church’s history.
But even if that interpretation is correct, it could still have meaningful positive consequences. The Catholic Church’s position has historically been one of the main excuses conservative circles used to obsess over homosexuality and control people’s bodies. If the official Church line becomes “don’t focus on that,” those circles lose a major part of their justification.
Hell, a lot of regular Catholics, especially in Europe, might start asking why the politicians they supported are still so obsessed with these issues. Maybe some of them stop voting for populists whose whole agenda is gaining power by distracting people with hatred.
So whatever the intention behind those words, the potential for positive change is still there.
imunfair@reddit
I'm not Catholic but I was under the impression that Pope Francis was pretty openly pro-LGBT, and that Pope Leo is more conservative on many issues - this being an attempt to walk back some of the free-love attitude rather than grant permission by not talking about it?
bradicality@reddit
This has made JD Vance very sad no doubt
notislant@reddit
Damn JD Vance is going to have his eyeliner running down his pillsbury dough face.
Level_Hour6480@reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/qVArHbFRJP
Strawbuddy@reddit
Pelvic Theologist is one of those things on a resume you can't necessarily disprove
Anxiety_Fit@reddit
Not on my bingo card.
throwawayainteasy@reddit
Man, I was about to come in here and complain about the stupid headline, but the article is actually quite good. Plus brief and straightforwardly written, unlike a lot of other NYT opinion pieces.
PaoloCalzone@reddit
Tbh, I don't get why this is even a question. What is the point, if you are gay, to integrate a religion which posits that you are evil and should change, otherwise you would go to hell? Even if the Pope says the dogma is bi-curious, believers would likely not evolve as fast. There might be other churches than Catholic, and other religions/spiritualities which do not obey the Pope and are more flexible. Let the Catholics say gay men can't be Catholic, and move on.
octopusboots@reddit
You're talking like adults choose their religion like cars.
Early indoctrination is deeply seated. It's not easy to leave something that is fundamental to your core understanding of the world. Easier to suppress your sexuality. Which is nearly impossible.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
The doctrine of Original Sin posits that we're all inherently evil and should repent. Some even took that repentance to extremes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-flagellation And yet that didn't stop billions of people, gay or not, from adopting the religions that told them that. Religion is a funny thing - it matters a LOT to some people, even when it tells them they're bad.