Pope Leo XIV affirms family is based on union between a man and a woman, unborn has inherent dignity
Bells rang out in downtown Vancouver Thursday to celebrate the election of the 267th pope, who is also the first American pontiff.
VATICAN CITY — Pope Leo XIV affirmed Friday that the family is founded on the 'stable union between a man and a woman,' and that the unborn and elderly enjoy dignity as God's creatures, articulating clear Catholic teaching on marriage and abortion at the start of his pontificate.
Leo, the first American pope, also called for reviving multilateral diplomacy and promoting dialogue between religions in the search for peace, in his first meeting with the Vatican diplomatic corps. The audience was private, but the Vatican released Leo's prepared text and that of the dean of the diplomatic corps.
The encounter is one of the protocol requirements after a conclave, allowing a new pope to greet representatives of world governments ahead of his formal installation Mass this Sunday. The Holy See is a sovereign state under international law, has diplomatic relations with over 180 countries and enjoys observer status at the United Nations.
Leo, a member of the Augustinian religious order, has emphasized peace as a priority of his pontificate, from the first words he uttered on the loggia of St. Peter's Basilica after his May 8 election, 'Peace be with you all.'
In his remarks, he said the search for peace was one of the pillars of the papacy. He insisted that peace isn't just the absence of conflict but a 'gift' that requires work, from an end to the production of weapons to choosing words carefully. 'For words too, not only weapons, can wound and even kill.'
He said it was up to governments to build peaceful societies 'above all by investing in the family, founded upon the stable union between a man and a woman.'
'In addition, no one is exempted from striving to ensure respect for the dignity of every person, especially the most frail and vulnerable, from the unborn to the elderly, from the sick to the unemployed, citizens and immigrants alike,' he said.
Pope Francis strongly reaffirmed core Catholic teaching opposing abortion and euthanasia, saying they were evidence of today's 'throwaway culture.' But he also made reaching out to LGBTQ2S+ Catholics a hallmark, insisting they are welcome in the church. He never changed church doctrine defining marriage as a union between man and woman and homosexual acts as 'intrinsically disordered.'
As the then-head of the Augustinian order, the Rev. Robert Prevost in 2012 criticized the 'homosexual lifestyle' and the role of mass media in promoting acceptance of same-sex relationships that conflicted with Catholic doctrine. A decade later, during Francis' pontificate, he acknowledged Francis' call for a more inclusive church, and said he didn't want people excluded just on the basis of their lifestyle.
Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
Nicole Winfield, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
25 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Canada can't solve its housing crisis without the provinces
Mike Moffatt is the founding director of the Missing Middle Initiative. Lisa Raitt is the co-chair of the Task Force for Housing and Climate and a former minister of transport, labour and natural resources. Canada is facing a housing crisis of historic proportions. To restore affordability, the country needs to build 5.8 million new homes by 2030. That means doubling the current rate of housing starts – an ambitious goal set by Prime Minister Mark Carney during the federal election campaign. It's a promise that will define his leadership, and one he'll be under intense pressure to deliver on. But no single order of government can solve Canada's housing crisis alone. While the federal government sets the tone and provides funding tools, the provinces hold many of the most important policy levers. If they don't act boldly, they risk becoming the bottleneck in Canada's efforts to boost supply, improve affordability and build housing that aligns with climate goals and can withstand extreme weather. The federal government has taken meaningful steps, including the promise to launch a Build Canada Homes entity and reinstate a 1970s-era tax incentive to spur rental apartment construction. It has also removed GST from new rental builds and made federal land available for housing. These are important changes – but their impact will be limited unless provinces get moving. In some provinces, we've seen positive momentum toward building density: British Columbia's reform allowing multiple units per lot and Ontario's recent relaxation of parking minimums are helpful steps. Inside the crisis facing Canada's dysfunctional housing market Tony Keller: Build, baby, build: Canada used to know how to do that Although both provinces have introduced reforms, these measures have been neutralized by skyrocketing development charges and sluggish approval timelines. As a result, housing starts in both provinces dropped more than 30 per cent in the first quarter of 2025 compared to the previous year. Municipalities, for their part, are largely 'creatures of the province,' and the decisions they make must be compliant with provincial regulations, such as Ontario's Development Charges Act. Some have begun to implement long-overdue zoning reforms. Some have acted independently, while others were encouraged to do so through the federal Housing Accelerator Fund. These initiatives show promise – but are frequently undermined by provincial inaction or contradictory policies. Fortunately, governments don't have to start from scratch. In 2024, the Task Force for Housing and Climate – composed of 15 housing and policy experts, including former Edmonton mayor Don Iveson and Mr. Carney (he's no longer a member) – published a comprehensive roadmap: Blueprint for More and Better Housing. It outlines more than 140 actionable recommendations across all levels of government to boost supply, deliver affordability, and build homes resilient to climate impacts. This year, the Task Force followed up with a report card grading federal and provincial governments on their performance. The federal government earned a B, praised for its recent initiatives but urged to improve transparency in programs like the Housing Accelerator and to launch a national hazard mapping initiative to prevent building in flood- and fire-prone areas. For the provinces, it's a different story. No province scored higher than a C+, with high fees, slow approvals and inconsistent reforms holding housing back. Among the provinces, Prince Edward Island earned among the highest marks for reforms that have boosted housing supply. However, the province still needs to do more to ensure new homes meet energy and climate-resilience standards. British Columbia introduced some of the country's boldest reforms, but its overall impact is undercut by rising municipal fees and glacial approval processes. Ontario, despite Premier Doug Ford's public opposition to fourplexes, has quietly legalized more density than most provinces and promised to launch a housing innovation fund. But volatile policymaking, persistent delays in the Greater Toronto Area, and the highest development charges in North America have led to low housing starts and, accordingly, a middling grade of C. If Canada is serious about tackling the housing crisis, now is the time for leadership, especially at the provincial level. We already know what works. The policy solutions are well understood and widely supported. What's missing is the political will to implement them. The housing crisis is not just a federal problem, or a municipal one. It is a national challenge – and solving it requires co-ordination and commitment from all three levels of government. The provinces hold many of the keys to housing, and need to act soon to help unlock supply.
National Post
31 minutes ago
- National Post
Ivison: The future is nuclear but we need pipelines too
Article content This week, John Ivison discussed the Carney government's plans for nation-building projects with Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot, a senior advisor for the Business Council of Canada. Article content Ivison asked whether asking premiers to submit projects deemed to be in the national interest will mean we are at risk of pursuing white elephants that are not feasible or uneconomic. Article content Article content 'The tone has markedly improved from the last Liberal government, so there is some optimism,' she said. 'There is a sense that the federal government will be a partner in building things, where, for a long time, we thought they were blocking our ability to build things. So it's a great start but there's only so long that you can have a honeymoon period before things have to happen. We actually have to see some action. And we know that Liberal governments are very good at rhetoric and not so great at implementation.' Article content She said her concern is that projects are being submitted by governments and then projects deemed 'nation-building' are being selected by the federal government. Article content 'The direction it's going is a little concerning, in that they want to have a short list of nation-building projects and they will determine if it's nation building and use the public purse to fund them in cases where the private sector will not step up. Article content 'There may be a handful where that's justified. There's obviously a role for governments to build infrastructure. But the low-hanging fruit is obviously to improve our regulatory competitiveness. We have very restrictive, very burdensome regulatory processes. There are a lot of projects that proponents want to do on their own, without government help, if the regulation was better, if we had better tax competitiveness with our competitors. And so I will tolerate a handful of these nation building projects, if they make sense from a business side. But at the end of the day, we're going to need to see the regulations improved and streamlined.' Article content Exner-Pirot said that Mark Carney's goal of a two-year approval process is a 'great target' Article content '(But) we should walk before we run. For some of these things, three years also look pretty good. Two years is certainly feasible if we have good processes and good relations with Indigenous partners. The Conservatives were talking about a six months (approval process) and that just didn't seem feasible to me – that you would never be able to fulfill your duty to consult and accommodate in such a timeline. So two years is ambitious, but doable and we should reach for it.' Article content She pointed out that Canada has to be regulatory and tax competitive with jurisdictions like Texas. Article content 'We would like to bring some of that capital back home. But at the end of the day, investors are going to make those decisions based on the return that they get. Let's make sure that our tax system is competitive so that capital actually wants to choose Canada. One sector where Exner-Pirot is extremely bullish is nuclear power generation using small modular nuclear reactors. Article content This is the one area where I just think: 'Yes, this is a nation building project'. We should lead on SMRs. And there's so many strategic reasons for Canada. One is that we have the uranium source. (We are) the world's number two exporter and number two producer of uranium. We have phenomenal deposits in northern Saskatchewan and in Nunavut. We could dominate the supply chain and the technology. We are building the first SMR in the G7. It has taken some public money to get there. But being the first mover really does accord you some benefits as you try to sell these models in the future. So where can we go next? Nuclear really has the potential if you get the cost curve down. It's a baseload clean energy that needs very little land and very little material inputs. In 100 years, do I think we'll be doing mostly nuclear? Yes, I honestly do.' Article content On specific projects, Ivison asked if a bitumen pipeline should be a priority. Article content '(Alberta premier) Danielle Smith has said it, and my analysis suggests it's absolutely true: There is nothing that will change the economic growth, the GDP, the productivity per capita in this country as much as a bitumen pipeline. We finally added Trans Mountain about a year ago. That's at 90 per cent utilization right now in one year. Our producers filled it fast, so there's clearly demand. We're seeing most of that demand come from Asia, so there is strong demand in global markets for Canadian heavy oil. But it is concerning that we have added this pipeline and we're already running out of egress. So there is an urgency from the producers that we need to start thinking about the next pipeline. And I don't think we're going to get Northern Gateway in two years. If everything went well, probably four years. And that's why we have to start planning for (the next one) now,' she said. Article content Exner-Pirot said whichever pipeline plan comes forward will require the B.C. government to revisit its opposition to tanker traffic on the West Coast. Article content 'I'm finding this hard to understand because B.C. has actually done some constructive and progressive things on the economic development side since Trump was inaugurated. (Premier Dave) Eby has almost been the most vocal about wanting the elbows up. He said in February that if we don't sell Canadian oil and gas, they will just get it from places like Venezuela. I thought: 'Wow, this guy has had a light bulb moment'. To hear (his support for the tanker ban) two and a half months later is quite disappointing. Now a lot of this is federal jurisdiction, so while we want the feds to get out of the way, (it is different) on inter-provincial pipelines, because that is clearly federal jurisdiction. We know from Trans Mountain when B.C., if you recall, said: 'We will use every tool in the toolbox to stop this project'. And they did. But it wasn't their right. The feds can overturn the oil tanker ban. That's their jurisdiction. But what proponent really wants to step into a situation where a provincial government is going to use every tool in the toolbox to stop your project? It's obviously not bullish for investment to have this kind of political disagreement on the ground.' Article content Ivison asked if the idea of a 'grand bargain' between Alberta and Ottawa on decarbonizing bitumen before it is transported to the West Coast by pipeline is a viable option. Article content 'It is feasible. The industry itself has proposed carbon capture and also using some solvents to reduce emissions. In the last 11 years, they have actually reduced carbon intensity emissions per barrel by 30 per cent. So they are doing the work. A lot of the carbon comes from natural gas input to heat the bitumen. That's an expense. There's every reason why they would rather not have to pay that kind of money. Article content 'Right now, the oil sands, on a life cycle basis, is only about 1-3 per cent higher emissions than the global average barrel, the average crude. But if we did this carbon capture, if we did some of the solvent innovations that they're using, it would actually be below the global average on a life cycle basis. So there is a grand bargain to be had. The industry itself has been advocating it. We're very competitive on an economic basis. We want to be competitive on a carbon basis. Article content 'What Danielle Smith is saying is: 'Where's the money going to come from to spend probably $20 billion on these (carbon capture) technologies? If you know you're going to get another pipeline and you can increase your production and fill it with a million barrels a day, well, now there's more revenue coming in and there's a justification. (But) if all your profits have to be driven into carbon capture, you're just not going to get any investment. All of this is cost, none of this is profit and they still have to have a certain level of return from the investors or the investors will just take off.' Article content Moving east across Canada,, Exner-Pirot has been skeptical about Arctic ports being commercially viable. She noted that the feds and the province of Manitoba have spent more than half a billion dollars on the port of Churchill and it's still not attracting shippers and investors, while the Northwest Territories is trying to push the idea of an 'Arctic Security Corridor' that runs between Alberta and Gray's Bay in Nunavut, via Yellowknife. Both ports are impacted by a short shipping season because of sea ice. Article content 'It's a terrible idea for oil and a very bad idea for liquefied natural gas,' she said. 'You will never get a return on your investment. We do want northern development. We do want those regions to prosper at a local level. (But) this is not the thing that's going to grow our GDP. This is not the thing that's going to help Canada diversify its exports away. Article content 'A port in Churchill and a port in Gray's Bay can be useful for helping local mining development happen. That's important for jobs, for taxes, for royalties, for those communities' economic health. So there's a reason it's a public good to provide some basic infrastructure, basic transportation access for the people that live there. Article content Critical minerals are a very different thing from oil. You can mine, you can produce all year and stockpile it, and then in that short shipping season you can ship it out. It's not very expensive just to have it sitting there while the shipping season is closed.' Article content Exner-Pirot said the signs are positive that Canada will finally get its act together and overcome the barriers to economic development because the alternative is stagnation. Article content 'If we return to our complacency after what we've seen and what we've gone through, then God help this country. The conversation right now, again, is focusing on a few projects. I'll be tolerant of this, maybe for a handful of projects and for a handful of months. But (we must) improve our regulatory systems, especially at the federal level. That is where we need to see movement. You can't bring in new people at the rate we bring in new people, and you can't be dependent on China at the rate that we're dependent on China. That cannot keep going on,' she said. Article content
National Post
31 minutes ago
- National Post
FIRST READING: The wild overreach contained in the Liberals' new border control bill
Article content TOP STORY Article content The first piece of legislation tabled by the new Carney government is a bill framed as a means to tighten the 'security of the border between Canada and the United States.' Article content 'The Bill will … keep Canadians safe by ensuring law enforcement has the right tools to keep our borders secure, combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl, and crack down on money laundering' read a backgrounder. Article content Article content But within days of the text becoming public, analysts began to notice that Bill C-2's 140 pages contained a number of provisions that went well beyond the usual scope of chasing down drug smugglers and gangsters. This includes a clause that technically outlaws paying for anything with more than $10,000 in cash. Article content Article content The bill would do this via an amendment to The Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act, legislation that was first made law in 2000. The amendment states that it would become an offence to accept 'a cash payment, donation or deposit of $10,000 or more in a single transaction.' Article content It doesn't matter if the $10,000 is paid to a licensed business for a legal product or service: The mere fact that the payment is in cash is what makes it illegal. Article content Article content It also becomes illegal if 'a prescribed series of related transactions' come to a total of more than $10,000. So, if you pay $2,000 cash to a contractor more than five times, that contractor will have officially violated The Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act. Article content Article content In a statement, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms conceded that it's a rare thing for a Canadian to pay a five-figure bill in cash, but warned that once the precedent is set, it would be very easy for governments to reduce the 'legal amount' of a cash transaction. 'Restricting the use of cash is a dangerous step towards tyranny and totalitarianism,' it wrote. Article content 'If we cherish our privacy, we need to defend our freedom to choose cash, in the amount of our choosing. This includes, for example, our right to pay $10,000 cash for a car, or to donate $10,000 (or more) to a charity.' Article content Another twist with the provision is that it only covers donations collected by an entity involved in 'the solicitation of charitable financial donations.' So virtually all of the anti-Israel protests regularly blockading Canadian streets would be exempt, as they're not organized by registered charities. If you want to hand $10,000 in cash to your local Globalize the Intifada vigil, The Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act has no quarrel with you.
