Pope Francis formally authorizes blessings for same-sex couples (*certain restrictions apply)

[essentialsaltes]

Pope Francis formally permitted Roman Catholic priests to bless same-sex couples on Monday, in a significant shift in Vatican doctrine.

The blessings may be carried out providing they are not part of regular Church rituals or liturgies, nor at the same time as a civil union, according to a Vatican document approved by the pope.

The latest ruling fleshes out the opening the pope made to blessing same-sex couples last October and marks a shift away from a 2021 ruling from the Vatican doctrine office which barred any blessings saying God “cannot bless sin.”

 

[ranunculus]

Same-sex couples have been elevated to the same level as pets

 

[crixus]

The Pope sold out.

 

[RonJohnSilver]

Clearly the Pope either does not understand or accept the Biblical stance on this. But that's true of other doctrines as well so, no surprise.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Atheists, Liberals and Anti Christians everywhere celebrate.

 

[strobertofsalzburg]

No surprise. The innovation machine that is Rome will always continue in this way.

 

[Pommer]

No surprise. The innovation machine that is Rome will always continue in this way.

Once the Vatican admitted that Galileo was not incorrect (1992) was when they began this mad dash to modernity.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Atheists, Liberals and Anti Christians everywhere celebrate.

Why would atheists celebrate? what the Pope says has no influence over me one way or the other.

And while I'm not sure what an "Anti-Christian" is, (To be clear, I understand what the prefix and clause semantically mean...I'm referring to the fact that I've never seen anyone who would truly fit that specific description that wouldn't just be classified as Anti-Religion more broadly)

...if such a person existed, I don't know why they'd be celebrating this, it'd be counterintuitive. If someone was truly (specifically) anti-Christian, they'd be pretty upset about the fact that the largest denomination of Christianity just a made a move that will potentially make them more popular/appealing, not less.. as the goal of a truly anti-Christian person would be to have as many people as possible find Christianity unappealing. (especially to other people who they perceive to be on "their side" of certain issues)


As an analogy: If the NRA made a move or slight concession that made them marginally more popular with a few additional people on the left, a truly "anti-gun" person wouldn't be celebrating that.

 

[rambot]

My favourite response to this is "Well clearly the pope doesn't know the Bible".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

My favourite response to this is "Well clearly the pope doesn't know the Bible".

I've heard that response before, and while in some cases the claim is as absurd as it sounds, in other cases, it's an understandable critique when you consider that there are dozens of different "prominent" versions of the Bible out there, and it is possible for a person to be well read in one, and not familiar with the others.

It's another interesting caveat of Christianity.

There's strict followers of each of the versions of the The Bible, each thinking that their preferred version is THE Bible.

So if you have one of the die-hard "KJV and nothing but the KJV" folks (and I kid you not, there's actually people who get so strict with that, that it has to be a specific version of the KJV... the Southern Baptist church my parents went to insisted that it had to be the 1611 version of the KJV), who's read the thing cover to cover dozens of times, it's understandable that they would have the takeaway that the Pope (who uses a different Bible) "Doesn't know the Bible" as by KJV standards, Catholics do a lot of things that are anti-biblical...the inverse would be true as well.

 

[keith99]

I've heard that response before, and while in some cases the claim is as absurd as it sounds, in other cases, it's an understandable critique when you consider that there are dozens of different "prominent" versions of the Bible out there, and it is possible for a person to be well read in one, and not familiar with the others.

It's another interesting caveat of Christianity.

There's strict followers of each of the versions of the The Bible, each thinking that their preferred version is THE Bible.

So if you have one of the die-hard "KJV and nothing but the KJV" folks (and I kid you not, there's actually people who get so strict with that, that it has to be a specific version of the KJV... the Southern Baptist church my parents went to insisted that it had to be the 1611 version of the KJV), who's read the thing cover to cover dozens of times, it's understandable that they would have the takeaway that the Pope (who uses a different Bible) "Doesn't know the Bible" as by KJV standards, Catholics do a lot of things that are anti-biblical...the inverse would be true as well.

I always find it funny and sad that people stand behind a particular translation instead of the texts that are the basis of that translation. My bet is Popes tend to use those source documents.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I always find it funny and sad that people stand behind a particular translation instead of the texts that are the basis of that translation. My bet is Popes tend to use those source documents.

While it's admittedly not my area of expertise, several scholastic sources suggest that the New American Standard Bible is the closest translation out there.

According to Cambridge University, the NASB is:
a literal translation from the original texts, well suited to study because of its accurate rendering of the source texts.

That's the bible used (most commonly) by the Protestant denominations of Presbyterian, Nazarene, and Methodist.

Just a few little examples:

In the NASB Matthew 23:9:
And do not call anyone on earth father; for only One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

And NASB Matthew 6:7
And when you are praying, do not use thoughtless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard because of their many words.

(the Catholic Bible version of the same verse)
In praying, do not babble like the pagans


It would seem as if the ideas in the NASB would seemingly contradict the notion of calling priests "father", and doing repetitious exercises with prayers (like, say, the rosary and hail mary)


So you can see why a NASB "purist" may come away with the conclusion that the Catholic church is anti-biblical in some regards

 

[ranunculus]

No surprise. The innovation machine that is Rome will always continue in this way.

innovation machine, lol

Churches are the most conservative and traditional institutions that exist (The catholic church in particular). They are very resistant to change. A lot of them still have to be dragged into the 19th century, let alone the 21st. Churches manage to remain on the wrong side of history for a staggering amount of time and they're always the last to cross the finish line.

This is still better than some individuals and organizations, who will never cross that finish line.

 

[Occams Barber]

Pope Francis formally permitted Roman Catholic priests to bless same-sex couples on Monday, in a significant shift in Vatican doctrine.

The blessings may be carried out providing they are not part of regular Church rituals or liturgies, nor at the same time as a civil union, according to a Vatican document approved by the pope.

The latest ruling fleshes out the opening the pope made to blessing same-sex couples last October and marks a shift away from a 2021 ruling from the Vatican doctrine office which barred any blessings saying God “cannot bless sin.”

From my point of view pronouncements like this often sound like religious double-talk. (It's a terrible sin - but - hey - we can live with it)

However, it does amount to another small step along the way to complete acceptance of homosexuality and SSM. I'm particularly happy for Catholic homosexual couples who may be able to more comfortably go back to their church.

Next step is female ordination. (Did they already sort out contraception and the masturbation thing?)

 

[RileyG]

No. Sin is not being blessed. Read the actual document.

 

[keith99]

While it's admittedly not my area of expertise, several scholastic sources suggest that the New American Standard Bible is the closest translation out there.

According to Cambridge University, the NASB is:
a literal translation from the original texts, well suited to study because of its accurate rendering of the source texts.

That's the bible used (most commonly) by the Protestant denominations of Presbyterian, Nazarene, and Methodist.

Just a few little examples:

In the NASB Matthew 23:9:
And do not call anyone on earth father; for only One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

And NASB Matthew 6:7
And when you are praying, do not use thoughtless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard because of their many words.

(the Catholic Bible version of the same verse)
In praying, do not babble like the pagans


It would seem as if the ideas in the NASB would seemingly contradict the notion of calling priests "father", and doing repetitious exercises with prayers (like, say, the rosary and hail mary)


So you can see why a NASB "purist" may come away with the conclusion that the Catholic church is anti-biblical in some regards

I totally agree regarding Catholic practices that run against Scripture. I'd add their 10 commandments where they separate coveting two commandments (which requires taking wife out of the middle of the list of things to not covet).

However, any translation into modern English has a huge problem. The original languages make a distinction between you as plural and you as singular. I have a vague recollection of a sermon where the whole point hung on it being one of those where it turned out in the original language it was the other.

When looking at the broad strokes a translation can be fine, but when it comes down to fine points one does have to go to the original documents.

 

[RileyG]

Atheists, Liberals and Anti Christians everywhere celebrate.

They want to attack Christ and the Church because they do not understand what it actually teaches. No, sin is not being condoned.

 

[Occams Barber]

No. Sin is not being blessed. Read the actual document.

There are 14 posts above yours. Which one are you responding to?

OB

 

[RileyG]

There are 14 posts above yours. Which one are you responding to?

OB

The original post. No sin is being celebrated or condoned.

 

[Fervent]

While it's admittedly not my area of expertise, several scholastic sources suggest that the New American Standard Bible is the closest translation out there.

According to Cambridge University, the NASB is:
a literal translation from the original texts, well suited to study because of its accurate rendering of the source texts.

That's the bible used (most commonly) by the Protestant denominations of Presbyterian, Nazarene, and Methodist.

Just a few little examples:

In the NASB Matthew 23:9:
And do not call anyone on earth father; for only One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

And NASB Matthew 6:7
And when you are praying, do not use thoughtless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard because of their many words.

(the Catholic Bible version of the same verse)
In praying, do not babble like the pagans


It would seem as if the ideas in the NASB would seemingly contradict the notion of calling priests "father", and doing repetitious exercises with prayers (like, say, the rosary and hail mary)


So you can see why a NASB "purist" may come away with the conclusion that the Catholic church is anti-biblical in some regards

While the NASB is certainly a fair example of a translation that aims for word-for-word replacement, that doesn't guarantee that it will be the closest to the original text. In fact, literal translations likely give the wrong impression both of how translation works and of the text itself in many cases. Translation isn't about simply replacing words with equivalents, because the meaning of a word almost always depends on the context it is found within and there are no exact overlaps between languages. So a word used in the original language may capture the denotative meaning, while completely lacking critical connotatations.

But all of this is beside the point, because a criticism such as the pope doesn't know the Bible doesn't hinge on the picadillos of a certain translation or the original languages when the move so blatantly flies in the face of what is essentially universal understanding of the text. What the whole thing boils down to is what the dominant ethic is emphasized, be that be an unflinching commitment to holiness or a compassionate embrace of sinners who are caught up in a complex web of sin(and by this I don't simply mean homosexuality but that sin is something deeply entrenched in everyone).