logo
Pope Francis sought to make LGBTQ+ people more welcome, but church doctrine didn't change much

Pope Francis sought to make LGBTQ+ people more welcome, but church doctrine didn't change much

The Hill24-04-2025

The papacy of Pope Francis ended with the same core doctrine for LGBTQ+ people that he inherited: The Catholic Church still rejected same-sex marriage and condemned any sexual relations between gay or lesbian partners as 'intrinsically disordered.'
Yet unlike his predecessors, Francis incrementally conveyed through his actions, formal statements and occasional casual remarks that he wanted the church to be a more welcoming place for them.
Frustrated activists, wary conservatives
Among activists, there was frustration over the lack of a doctrinal breakthrough, but still there was gratitude this week for his unabashed warmth toward them.
Francis, who died Monday, 'was a transformational leader who included LGBTQ people in historic ways,' said Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO of the U.S.-based advocacy group GLAAD, who met twice with the pope. 'His principles of empathetic listening, inclusion, and compassion are exactly what this divided world needs right now.'
Many conservative Catholic leaders were wary of his LGBTQ+ outreach — and sometimes were angry and defiant, such as when he decided in 2023 to let priests bless same-sex couples.
Africa's bishops united in refusing to implement the Vatican declaration, saying same-sex relationships were 'contrary to the will of God.' Individual bishops in Eastern Europe, Latin America and elsewhere also voiced opposition.
The declaration restated traditional church teaching that marriage is a lifelong union between a man and woman. But it allowed priests to offer spontaneous blessings to same-sex couples seeking God's grace, provided such blessings aren't confused with the rites of a wedding.
Frances later acknowledged the declaration had encountered resistance; he faulted opposing bishops for refusing to open a dialogue about it.
'Sometimes decisions are not accepted,' he said in a TV interview. 'But in most cases, when you don't accept a decision, it's because you don't understand.'
'This has happened with these last decisions about blessing everyone,' Francis added. 'The Lord blesses everyone.'
The beneficiaries of Francis' welcoming attitude included a community of transgender women — many of them Latin American migrants who worked in Rome as prostitutes — who visited his weekly general audiences and were given VIP seats.
'Before, the church was closed to us. They didn't see us as normal people. They saw us as the devil,' said Colombia-born Andrea Paola Torres Lopez. 'Then Pope Francis arrived, and the doors of the church opened for us.'
A 2023 synod reflects Francis' mixed legacy
The pope's mixed legacy was epitomized by the Vatican's 2023 synod bringing together hundreds of bishops and lay people to discuss the church's future. The advance agenda mentioned LGBTQ+ issues; one of Francis' hand-picked delegates was the Rev. James Martin, a U.S.-based Jesuit and prominent advocate of greater LGBTQ+ inclusion.
Yet in the final summary of the three-week synod, there was no mention of LGBTQ+ people — reflecting the influence of conservatives who opposed Francis' overtures to that community.
During the synod, the pope met with a small delegation from the Maryland-based New Ways Ministry, which advocates on behalf of LGBTQ+ Catholics in the U.S.
According to the group's executive director, Francis DeBernardo, the pope urged them never to lose hope — a message DeBernardo repeated after being disappointed by the synod's outcome.
'The Catholic LGBTQ+ community must take Pope Francis' message to heart,' he said. 'The report's shortcomings are an invitation to speak anew about their joys, their sorrows, and their faith. … Now is not a time to despair.'
Another disappointment came in May 2024, when Francis apologized after Italian media quoted unnamed bishops saying he jokingly used the vulgar term 'faggotness' while speaking in Italian during a meeting. He had used the term in reaffirming the Vatican's ban on allowing gay men to enter seminaries and be ordained priests.
This week, DeBernardo looked back at Francis' legacy mostly with appreciation, even while acknowledging disappointments.
'Francis was not only the first pope to use the word 'gay' when speaking about LGBTQ+ people, he was the first pope to speak lovingly and tenderly to them,' DeBernardo wrote. 'His kind words of welcome to this community, traditionally marginalized in the church, rang loudly around the globe.'
An early message — 'Who am I to judge?'
It became clear early in Francis' papacy that he was going to articulate a gentler, more tolerant approach to LGBTQ+ people than any previous pope. The initial high-profile moment came in 2013 -– during the first airborne news conference of his pontificate — with his memorable 'Who am I to judge' comment when he was asked about a purportedly gay priest.
Signals had come earlier. As archbishop of Buenos Aires, he had favored granting legal protections to same-sex couples. After becoming pope, he went on to minister repeatedly and publicly to the gay and transgender communities, steadily evolving his position. His abiding message: 'Everyone, everyone, everyone' — 'todos, todos, todos' — is loved by God and should be welcomed in the church.
On some specific LGBTQ+ issues, Francis initially disappointed activists with his decisions, yet later softened or reversed them as part of highlighting his welcoming approach.
Francis was criticized by the Catholic gay community for a 2021 decree from the Vatican's doctrine office saying the church cannot bless same-sex unions because 'God cannot bless sin.' But that stance was effectively repudiated by the 2023 declaration on blessings.
Another reversal came that year in a Vatican statement saying it's permissible, under certain circumstances, for transgender people to be baptized and serve as godparents
If it did not cause scandal or 'disorientation' among other Catholics, a transgender person 'may receive baptism under the same conditions as other faithful,' it said.
Similarly, the document said trans adults, even if they had gender-transition surgery, could serve as godparents under certain conditions. That reversed an earlier outright ban.
U.S. transgender-rights advocates welcomed Francis' inclusive tone, noting that some political and religious leaders were targeting trans people with discriminatory laws and policies.
'Being homosexual isn't a crime'
Another issue tackled by Francis pertained to laws in dozens of countries criminalizing homosexual activity.
In 2008, the Vatican declined to sign a U.N. declaration calling for an end to such laws. But in a 2023 interview with The Associated Press, Francis assailed these laws as unjust and called for their elimination.
'Being homosexual isn't a crime,' Francis said.
Francis acknowledged that Catholic bishops in some regions support laws that criminalize homosexuality or discriminate against LGBTQ+ people. But he attributed such attitudes to cultural backgrounds, and said bishops need to recognize the dignity of everyone.
'These bishops have to have a process of conversion,' he said, suggesting they should apply 'tenderness, please, as God has for each one of us.'
Advocates of greater LGBTQ+ inclusion hailed Francis' comments.
'His historic statement should send a message to world leaders and millions of Catholics around the world: LGBTQ people deserve to live in a world without violence and condemnation, and more kindness and understanding,' said Ellis, the head of GLAAD.
Praise also came from Martin, who was selected by Francis as a synod delegate.
'Few bishops or bishops' conferences have condemned the criminalizing laws that the pope rejected today,' he wrote of the AP interview.
But Jamie Manson, a lesbian who headed the U.S.-based abortion-rights group Catholics for Choice, insisted declarations were not enough.
'LGBTQ people need more than nice-sounding words in a newspaper interview in order to be safe in the Catholic Church,' she wrote. 'We need doctrinal change.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Putin thanks Vatican for assistance in humanitarian matters
Putin thanks Vatican for assistance in humanitarian matters

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Putin thanks Vatican for assistance in humanitarian matters

Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed gratitude for the Vatican's mediation in humanitarian issues related to the Ukraine war in a first phone call with Pope Leo XIV. Putin advocated for the deepening of relations with the Holy See, which he said were based on "shared spiritual and ethical values," the Kremlin said on Wednesday. The Vatican stated later that the conversation "particularly focused on the situation in Ukraine and peace." The pope called on Russia to make a gesture promoting peace and emphasized the importance of dialogue between the parties and the search for solutions to the conflict, according to the Holy See. They also discussed the humanitarian situation and the necessity of providing aid where needed. According to a Kremlin statement, Putin wished the new pope success and conveyed congratulations from the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill. Leo XIV has clearly condemned the war as an act of aggression and called for its end. His predecessor, Francis, was often criticized for calling for peace without distinguishing between aggressor and victim. Putin complains about Ukraine's church policy Putin asked the leader of the Catholic Church to advocate for religious freedom in Ukraine. He sees this as being threatened by the ban on the former Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which was loyal to Moscow. The Ukrainian leadership, on the other hand, views this church as a security risk because many of its bishops and priests are closely connected to Moscow.

Get ready for a flurry of activity from the Supreme Court
Get ready for a flurry of activity from the Supreme Court

USA Today

time2 hours ago

  • USA Today

Get ready for a flurry of activity from the Supreme Court

Get ready for a flurry of activity from the Supreme Court Show Caption Hide Caption Protesters line up outside Supreme Court birthright citizenship hearing Protesters shouted "birthright citizenship belongs to us!" outside the Supreme Court in Washington D.C. WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is picking up the pace as it announces some of its most consequential decisions of the term before adjourning for the summer. The next cluster of opinions will drop on June 5, though the biggest outstanding decisions may not come until later. Those include whether the court will allow President Donald Trump to enforce his changes to birthright citizenship while his new policy is being litigated and whether the court will uphold Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors. In addition to the court dispensing with the cases it debated in oral arguments in recent months, the justices are continuing to field an unusual number of emergency requests from the Trump administration to intervene in the many legal challenges to the president's policies. That could push the regular work of the court into July. Here's a look at the decisions expected in the coming weeks: Limiting challenges to Trump's executive authority Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship has been put on hold by judges across the country who ruled it's probably unconstitutional. During the May 15 oral arguments, none of the justices voiced support for the Trump administration's theory that the president's order is consistent with the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause and past Supreme Court decisions about that provision. But several of the justices have expressed concern about the ability of one judge to block a law or presidential order from going into effect anywhere in the country while it's being challenged. It was unclear from the oral arguments how the court might find a way to limit nationwide – or 'universal' – court orders and what that would mean for birthright citizenship and the many other Trump policies being challenged in court. Religious expression versus separation of church and state Of the three cases the justices heard about the First Amendment's protections for the right to practice religion, the biggest was the Catholic Church's bid to run the nation's first religious charter school. But the court deadlocked 4-4 over whether they could do that. That left in place a lower court's rejection of the school but without setting a precedent that must be followed for similar attempts in the future. More: Supreme Court blocks Catholic charter school in big setback for religion advocates In the other cases about the free exercise of religion, the court is likely to side with Catholic Charities in a dispute over when religious groups have to pay unemployment taxes. And the court's conservative majority sounded sympathetic to Maryland parents who raised religious objections to having their elementary school children read books with LGBTQ+ characters. The battle over transgender rights Transgender rights cases were already making their way to the Supreme Court from state actions and now the Trump administration policies regarding transgender people will accelerate that trend. The court has already granted the administration's emergency request that it be allowed to enforce its ban on military service by transgender people while that restriction is being challenged. In one of the court's biggest pending decisions, the justices will decide whether states can ban minors from receiving puberty blockers and hormone therapy. During December's oral arguments, a majority seemed to agree states can do that. But how they reach that conclusion will affect how much their decision applies to other transgender rights case including those about transgender athletes, whether health plans have to cover gender affirming care, where transgender inmates must be housed and if transgender people can serve in the military. Implications for parental rights While the court seems likely to rule against the parents challenging Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors, they sounded poised to back the Maryland parents who want their elementary school children excused from class when books with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. And in a case about Texas' requirement that websites verify users are 18 or over, one justice expressed her own parental frustration over trying to control what her children see on the internet. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who has seven children, said she knows from personal experience how difficult it is to keep up with the content blocking devices that those challenging Texas' law offered as a better alternative. But while the justices were sympathetic to the purpose of Texas' law, they may decide a lower court didn't sufficiently review whether it violates the First Amendment rights of adults so must be reconsidered. Gun cases could bring mixed results In one of the court's biggest decisions so far this year, a 7-2 majority upheld the Biden administration's regulation of untraceable 'ghost guns,' ruling that the weapons can be subject to background checks and other requirements. But the court is expected to reject Mexico's attempt to hold U.S. gunmakers liable for violence caused by Mexican drug cartels armed with their weapons. A majority of the justices sounded likely to agree with the gunmakers that the chain of events between the manufacture of a gun and the harm it causes is too lengthy to blame the industry. Neither case is directly about the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. And the court narrowly decided against taking up two cases about that right – Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons and Rhode Island's ban on high-capacity magazines. More: Supreme Court won't review bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines Planned Parenthood, but not abortion directly, is an issue Unlike last year when the court considered two cases about abortion access, that hot button issue is not directly before the court. But the justices are deciding whether to back South Carolina's effort to deprive Planned Parenthood of public funding for other health services because it also provides abortions. The issue is whether the law allows Medicaid patients to sue South Carolina for excluding Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. If the court says the patients can't sue, other GOP-led states are expected to also kick Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid. And anti-abortion advocates are pushing for the same action nationwide. Conservative challenges to Obamacare and internet subsidies The court is considering conservative challenges to Obamacare and to an $8 billion federal program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans. The justices seemed likely to reject an argument that the telecommunications program is funded by an unconstitutional tax, a case that raised questions about how much Congress can 'delegate' its legislative authority to a federal agency. The latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act takes aim at 2010 law's popular requirement that insurers cover without extra costs preventive care such as cancer screenings, cholesterol-lowering medication and diabetes tests. Two Christian-owned businesses and some people in Texas argue that the volunteer group of experts that recommends the services health insurance must cover is so powerful that, under the Constitution, its members must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Multiple discrimination challenges The court is deciding a number of cases about alleged discrimination in the workplace, at school and in drawing congressional boundaries. The justices appeared likely to rule that a worker faced a higher hurdle to sue her employer as a straight woman than if she'd been gay, a decision that would make it easier to file 'reverse discrimination' lawsuits. The court may also side with a Minnesota teenager trying to use the Americans with Disabilities Act to sue her school for not accommodating her rare form of epilepsy that makes it difficult to attend class before noon. It's less clear whether the court will agree with non-Black voters in Louisiana that the state's congressional map, which includes two majority-Black districts, discriminates against them. Decisions in all the cases are expected by the end of June or early July.

Trumpworld shrugs off Elon Musk's revolt over ‘Big Beautiful Bill': ‘Knew he'd throw a fit'
Trumpworld shrugs off Elon Musk's revolt over ‘Big Beautiful Bill': ‘Knew he'd throw a fit'

New York Post

time3 hours ago

  • New York Post

Trumpworld shrugs off Elon Musk's revolt over ‘Big Beautiful Bill': ‘Knew he'd throw a fit'

WASHINGTON — Trump White House confidants said Wednesday they were not surprised tech billionaire Elon Musk blew up at the House-passed 'Big, Beautiful Bill' — noting the former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) luminary would have found something to beef with the administration about sooner or later. The 53-year-old South Africa-born billionaire — who in April went chest-to-chest with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent over their respective visions for the IRS in the halls of the White House — shook up Washington Tuesday by decrying the signature GOP legislation as 'a disgusting abomination' and vowing to campaign to 'fire' Republican lawmakers who supported it. 'I'd say most knew he'd throw a fit sometime this year. It was exciting but not surprising,' one Trumpworld source told The Post of the outburst. Advertisement 'I do think he didn't leave on the best of terms,' added a second person close to the White House. 'But I also think there's a general awareness [that] this is just the way he operates.' The Tesla and SpaceX CEO went on the warpath for a second straight day Wednesday, declaring: 'A new spending bill should be drafted that doesn't massively grow the deficit and increase the debt ceiling by 5 TRILLION DOLLARS.' Call your Senator, Call your Congressman, Bankrupting America is NOT ok!' he added in yet another X post. 'KILL the BILL'. Advertisement The second insider added that it was understandable Musk would take issue with his May 30 departure as a special government employee coinciding with the White House working to pass a bill that the Congressional Budget Office predicted Wednesday will add $2.4 trillion to the federal deficit. 'His most legitimate point relates to DOGE and the fact that he exposed a bunch of waste and inefficiency with big government contractors like Accenture,' this person said, 'but right as he leaves they get awarded massive new contracts and it feels like 'back to business as usual.'' On March 20, Accenture CEO Julie Spellman Sweet told Wall Street analysts that the IT and management consulting company had lost federal contracts after DOGE ran the rule over them. 3 President Donald Trump and Elon Musk speak before departing the White House on his way to his South Florida home in Mar-a-Lago in Florida on March 14, 2025. AFP via Getty Images Advertisement Since then, however, business has picked up for the Ireland-based firm — including a $336 million contract with the Air Force announced six days after Sweet's complaint. Musk departed on seemingly good terms, with Trump handing him a key to the White House during an Oval Office ceremony. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt also played down the initial angry posts by Musk Tuesday, telling reporters during her regular briefing that 'the president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill' and that 'it doesn't change his opinion.' 3 Elon Musk looks on during a Cabinet Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House March 24, 2025 in Washington, DC. AFP via Getty Images Advertisement 3 President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference with Elon Musk in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on May 30, 2025. AFP via Getty Images Sources close to Musk confirmed to The Post Tuesday night that his rant against the legislation stems from four specific grievances with the administration. Those include the House GOP overturning Biden-era electric vehicle tax credits, the White House refusing to let Musk stay beyond his statutory 130-day special government employee tenure, the Federal Aviation Administration not using Starlink satellites to help manage the nation's air traffic control system, and Trump pulling his nomination for Musk ally Jared Isaacman to lead NASA over this past weekend. 'I think Elon doesn't totally understand how this works, and you aren't going to change the way the [government] operates,' argued a third source close to the White House, who noted that Musk's specific grievances were 'personal' rather than philosophical. 'I think there's a gap from it getting done and reality,' the source added. 'If Trump did [what Musk had asked], the media would be saying he's giving Elon favorable treatment. So it's a tough situation.' A rep for Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store