15 ms·

"Whereas Francis said, “Who am I to judge?” when asked about gay clerics, Cardinal Prevost has expressed less welcoming views to L.G.B.T.Q. people. In a 2012 a

"Whereas Francis said, “Who am I to judge?” when asked about gay clerics, Cardinal Prevost has expressed less welcoming views to L.G.B.T.Q. people. In a 2012 address to bishops, he lamented that Western news media and popular culture fostered “sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the gospel.” He cited the “homosexual lifestyle” and “alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children.”" https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/02/world/americas/pope-candidate-cardinal-robert-francis-prevost.html#:~:text=when%20asked%20about%20gay%20clerics,at%20odds%20with%20the%20gospel.%E2%80%9D https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/02/world/americas/pope-candi...

chirau 1y ago
Is there an accessible link?
- scrlk 1y ago
  https://archive.ph/KRJYg https://archive.ph/KRJYg
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
armchairhacker 1y ago
The quote is very similar to https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/cardinals/robert-francis-prevost/ https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/cardinals/robert-franci... (“Summary” footnote 1), but missing the second part: > However, regarding the Vatican’s 2023 document Fiducia Supplicans, which permits non-liturgical blessings for couples in irregular situations (including same-sex couples), Prevost emphasized the need for national bishops’ conferences to have doctrinal authority to interpret and apply such directives in their local contexts, given cultural differences. So it’s ambiguous.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
TZubiri 1y ago
There will probably be a time for this debate. But in general, this is the church line, not really surprising.
sepositus 1y ago
Curious, do you think he's wrong that it's at odds with what was taught by the apostles? It's obviously unpopular, but I have yet to see a convincing argument (based in the teachings of the Bible) that promotes same-sex marriages. If I were in his position, and part of my duty is to interpret and lead via "the holy scriptures," then I would probably want to be as accurate as possible.
- breadwinner 1y ago
  > my duty is to interpret and lead via "the holy scriptures" Said scriptures also says that a woman can be sold to her rapist after he violates her. I think a more modern interpretation would not be a bad idea.
  - zombiwoof 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - sepositus 1y ago
    What do you mean? There are plenty of "modern" interpretations. New scholarly commentaries come out almost every year. My point is that, among these, the prevailing assumption continues to be one that doesn't support same-sex marriages in the church. What is lacking, from my perspective, are scholarly interpretations that swing the discussion the other way. The best I've seen simply just exclude the problematic scriptures which really isn't within the Catholic tradition (inerrancy of scripture and all). contexnt: I've studied religions (and still follow the topic) and have a basic understanding of where things are, but take it with a grain of salt.
    - jasonjayr 1y ago
      I think the crux of the problem is that with all the statements the Bible makes, at a plain reading of the text, who are we, as mere humans to decide which parts should be strictly adhered to, or which parts should not, or which parts mean something completely different from the plain reading? As far as I can tell there is no consistent application of logic and understanding what parts matter and which parts do not. And depending on who you talk to, those parts change. I understand that as part of the faith, it is not our place to know the reason God has chosen. However, I believe that there are very serious concerns about the intentions of the people 'qualified' to interpret the texts. Relying on "just trust us" gets us into big trouble, fast. As the saying goes, the devil may quote scripture too.
rich_sasha 1y ago
I think "progressiveness" isn't necessarily a good metric to judge an entity that believes itself to be a moral guide. It's very job is to deal moral teachings, rather than follow the crowd. That's not to say the teachings are right, and of course no one has to follow the teachings. But it'd be a bit like saying, dunno, dismissing a judge's verdict on the basis of it not reflecting popular opinion. It's not meant to reflect popular opinion, but be consistent with the law.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  How men of cloth treat gay people is a good litmus test for whether they’re following the Christian tenets of love and forgiveness. Like, you’re dealing with one of God’s creatures, per the Christian worldview. You can’t claim to respect God’s plan and then turn around and say you know better when it makes you feel icky. > job is to deal moral teachings, rather than follow the crowd An American Catholic hating and despising gays is very much following their crowd.
  - FeteCommuniste 1y ago
    Many a preacher will tell you that their way of "loving" gay people is to warn them of the hellfire awaiting them if they don't quit doing gay stuff and repent.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Many a preacher will tell you that their way of "loving" gay people is to warn them of the hellfire awaiting them if they don't quit doing gay stuff and repent I can actually accept this. They’re expressing an opinion, nothing more. If they then proceed to ostracise that person, or refuse to recognise their relations, that’s crossing into hate and pridefulness.
      - svieira 1y ago
        > If they then proceed to ostracise that person, that’s crossing into hate and pridefulness. Agreed > or refuse to recognise their relations, that’s crossing into hate and pridefulness. There I think we need a finer view. "Mx. Other" is important to you? Yes, absolutely, they should recognize that. What you do with "Mx. Other" is good? Absolutely not, it's harming both you and "Mx. Other" who you clearly love. See https://boldlybeloved.com/ https://boldlybeloved.com/ for a beautiful example of how to do accompanying _right_ (in my opinion).
saguntum 1y ago
It's particularly nasty to me that he called out same-sex partners with adopted children. Why focus on families even if you are yourself homophobic?
- lostlogin 1y ago
  It’s a dog whistle. You do it for the same reasons anyone draws on hate. And it works. Look where it’s got him.
- hirvi74 1y ago
  [flagged]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
lo_zamoyski 1y ago
The Francis quote "Who am I to judge?" is misleading, as it is quoted out of context by the media from what was one of many fuzzy off-the-cuff remarks he made during his pontificate. The media almost certainly quoted him out of context intentionally. Note that Francis also said there was “too much frociaggine” in the seminaries. This is perhaps difficult for people to understand, but while the Church's pastoral approach toward people with same-sex attraction can change, its teachings on same-sex attraction and the gay lifestyle will not.
deng 1y ago
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but this answer by Francis was wildly over-interpreted. He simply cited the Catechism that the church should be welcoming to gay people, and not marginalize them. However, in no way did he ever mean by this that the church should be accepting homosexual relationships. What he was saying is that the church should see this as a sin like any other, and that the church needs to be open to sinners that search for God and show them the way. There is nothing revolutionary about this, it's literally in the Catechism. You can read his original answer here https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/july/documents/papa-francesco_20130728_gmg-conferenza-stampa.html https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/ju... He further expanded on this in his books, see for instance https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/33231/pope-francis-explains-who-am-i-to-judge-in-his-new-book https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/33231/pope-francis-e...
dauertewigkeit 1y ago
If you are a cleric, you are not supposed to be involved in any romantic partnership and sex outside of marriage is not allowed. As such it makes no difference if you are straight, gay or anything in between.
ivewonyoung 1y ago
> In a 2012 address to bishops Even Obama opposed gay marriage in 2010. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-still-opposes-same-sex-marriage/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-still-opposes-same-sex-ma...
- helloworld 1y ago
  President Barack Obama didn't support same-sex marriage until May 9, 2012, three days after Vice President Joe Biden announced his support for it. https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-comes-out-i-think-same-sex-couples-should-be-able-to-get-married https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-comes-ou... https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/07/us/politics/biden-expresses-support-for-same-sex-marriages.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/07/us/politics/biden-express...
wkat4242 1y ago
> "Whereas Francis said, “Who am I to judge?” when asked about gay clerics, He also called abortion doctors assassins and described genderideology as "the ugliest danger of our time" (or the 'greatest danger' according to some other sources). He wasn't really all that progressive. Sources: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2024-03/pope-francis-gender-ideology-is-the-ugliest-danger-of-our-time.html https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2024-03/pope-francis... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/10/pope-francis-compares-abortion-hiring-hitman https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/10/pope-francis-c... Of course he was a pope. It's in line with his church's doctrine. But I wouldn't call him progressive by any means.
- peterhadlaw 1y ago
  Idk killing 73 million people actually doesn't make you a hero in my book. 73 million souls, approximately a year.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - harimau777 1y ago
    Who killed 73 million people a year?
    - bdangubic 1y ago
      “The WHO estimates that around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year” the commenter is trying to be funny :)
Eavolution 1y ago
I know nothing about him recently or have any interest in Catholicism really, but 2012 is a long old time ago. 13 years is more than enough time for someone to have changed their opinion on something like this, so I'm not sure how valuable it is to look at statements that long ago.
asdf6969 1y ago
> In a 2012 address Almost every American public figure was anti-LGBT in 2012. The majority of the Democratic Party including the Obama, Clinton, and Biden families were against it. It sounds ridiculous now but Donald Trump was the most LGBT friendly president in history at the time of his first inauguration. Wait to see what he does now or find a more recent position.

chirau 1y ago

Is there an accessible link?

scrlk 1y ago
https://archive.ph/KRJYg https://archive.ph/KRJYg
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

armchairhacker 1y ago

The quote is very similar to https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/cardinals/robert-francis-prevost/ https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/cardinals/robert-franci... (“Summary” footnote 1), but missing the second part: > However, regarding the Vatican’s 2023 document Fiducia Supplicans, which permits non-liturgical blessings for couples in irregular situations (including same-sex couples), Prevost emphasized the need for national bishops’ conferences to have doctrinal authority to interpret and apply such directives in their local contexts, given cultural differences. So it’s ambiguous.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

TZubiri 1y ago

There will probably be a time for this debate. But in general, this is the church line, not really surprising.

sepositus 1y ago

Curious, do you think he's wrong that it's at odds with what was taught by the apostles? It's obviously unpopular, but I have yet to see a convincing argument (based in the teachings of the Bible) that promotes same-sex marriages. If I were in his position, and part of my duty is to interpret and lead via "the holy scriptures," then I would probably want to be as accurate as possible.

breadwinner 1y ago
> my duty is to interpret and lead via "the holy scriptures" Said scriptures also says that a woman can be sold to her rapist after he violates her. I think a more modern interpretation would not be a bad idea.
- zombiwoof 1y ago
  [flagged]
- sepositus 1y ago
  What do you mean? There are plenty of "modern" interpretations. New scholarly commentaries come out almost every year. My point is that, among these, the prevailing assumption continues to be one that doesn't support same-sex marriages in the church. What is lacking, from my perspective, are scholarly interpretations that swing the discussion the other way. The best I've seen simply just exclude the problematic scriptures which really isn't within the Catholic tradition (inerrancy of scripture and all). contexnt: I've studied religions (and still follow the topic) and have a basic understanding of where things are, but take it with a grain of salt.
  - jasonjayr 1y ago
    I think the crux of the problem is that with all the statements the Bible makes, at a plain reading of the text, who are we, as mere humans to decide which parts should be strictly adhered to, or which parts should not, or which parts mean something completely different from the plain reading? As far as I can tell there is no consistent application of logic and understanding what parts matter and which parts do not. And depending on who you talk to, those parts change. I understand that as part of the faith, it is not our place to know the reason God has chosen. However, I believe that there are very serious concerns about the intentions of the people 'qualified' to interpret the texts. Relying on "just trust us" gets us into big trouble, fast. As the saying goes, the devil may quote scripture too.

rich_sasha 1y ago

I think "progressiveness" isn't necessarily a good metric to judge an entity that believes itself to be a moral guide. It's very job is to deal moral teachings, rather than follow the crowd. That's not to say the teachings are right, and of course no one has to follow the teachings. But it'd be a bit like saying, dunno, dismissing a judge's verdict on the basis of it not reflecting popular opinion. It's not meant to reflect popular opinion, but be consistent with the law.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
How men of cloth treat gay people is a good litmus test for whether they’re following the Christian tenets of love and forgiveness. Like, you’re dealing with one of God’s creatures, per the Christian worldview. You can’t claim to respect God’s plan and then turn around and say you know better when it makes you feel icky. > job is to deal moral teachings, rather than follow the crowd An American Catholic hating and despising gays is very much following their crowd.
- FeteCommuniste 1y ago
  Many a preacher will tell you that their way of "loving" gay people is to warn them of the hellfire awaiting them if they don't quit doing gay stuff and repent.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Many a preacher will tell you that their way of "loving" gay people is to warn them of the hellfire awaiting them if they don't quit doing gay stuff and repent I can actually accept this. They’re expressing an opinion, nothing more. If they then proceed to ostracise that person, or refuse to recognise their relations, that’s crossing into hate and pridefulness.
    - svieira 1y ago
      > If they then proceed to ostracise that person, that’s crossing into hate and pridefulness. Agreed > or refuse to recognise their relations, that’s crossing into hate and pridefulness. There I think we need a finer view. "Mx. Other" is important to you? Yes, absolutely, they should recognize that. What you do with "Mx. Other" is good? Absolutely not, it's harming both you and "Mx. Other" who you clearly love. See https://boldlybeloved.com/ https://boldlybeloved.com/ for a beautiful example of how to do accompanying _right_ (in my opinion).

saguntum 1y ago

It's particularly nasty to me that he called out same-sex partners with adopted children. Why focus on families even if you are yourself homophobic?

lostlogin 1y ago
It’s a dog whistle. You do it for the same reasons anyone draws on hate. And it works. Look where it’s got him.
hirvi74 1y ago
[flagged]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

lo_zamoyski 1y ago

The Francis quote "Who am I to judge?" is misleading, as it is quoted out of context by the media from what was one of many fuzzy off-the-cuff remarks he made during his pontificate. The media almost certainly quoted him out of context intentionally. Note that Francis also said there was “too much frociaggine” in the seminaries. This is perhaps difficult for people to understand, but while the Church's pastoral approach toward people with same-sex attraction can change, its teachings on same-sex attraction and the gay lifestyle will not.

deng 1y ago

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but this answer by Francis was wildly over-interpreted. He simply cited the Catechism that the church should be welcoming to gay people, and not marginalize them. However, in no way did he ever mean by this that the church should be accepting homosexual relationships. What he was saying is that the church should see this as a sin like any other, and that the church needs to be open to sinners that search for God and show them the way. There is nothing revolutionary about this, it's literally in the Catechism. You can read his original answer here https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/july/documents/papa-francesco_20130728_gmg-conferenza-stampa.html https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/ju... He further expanded on this in his books, see for instance https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/33231/pope-francis-explains-who-am-i-to-judge-in-his-new-book https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/33231/pope-francis-e...

dauertewigkeit 1y ago

If you are a cleric, you are not supposed to be involved in any romantic partnership and sex outside of marriage is not allowed. As such it makes no difference if you are straight, gay or anything in between.

ivewonyoung 1y ago

> In a 2012 address to bishops Even Obama opposed gay marriage in 2010. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-still-opposes-same-sex-marriage/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-still-opposes-same-sex-ma...

helloworld 1y ago
President Barack Obama didn't support same-sex marriage until May 9, 2012, three days after Vice President Joe Biden announced his support for it. https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-comes-out-i-think-same-sex-couples-should-be-able-to-get-married https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-comes-ou... https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/07/us/politics/biden-expresses-support-for-same-sex-marriages.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/07/us/politics/biden-express...

wkat4242 1y ago

> "Whereas Francis said, “Who am I to judge?” when asked about gay clerics, He also called abortion doctors assassins and described genderideology as "the ugliest danger of our time" (or the 'greatest danger' according to some other sources). He wasn't really all that progressive. Sources: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2024-03/pope-francis-gender-ideology-is-the-ugliest-danger-of-our-time.html https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2024-03/pope-francis... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/10/pope-francis-compares-abortion-hiring-hitman https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/10/pope-francis-c... Of course he was a pope. It's in line with his church's doctrine. But I wouldn't call him progressive by any means.

peterhadlaw 1y ago
Idk killing 73 million people actually doesn't make you a hero in my book. 73 million souls, approximately a year.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- harimau777 1y ago
  Who killed 73 million people a year?
  - bdangubic 1y ago
    “The WHO estimates that around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year” the commenter is trying to be funny :)

Eavolution 1y ago

I know nothing about him recently or have any interest in Catholicism really, but 2012 is a long old time ago. 13 years is more than enough time for someone to have changed their opinion on something like this, so I'm not sure how valuable it is to look at statements that long ago.

asdf6969 1y ago

> In a 2012 address Almost every American public figure was anti-LGBT in 2012. The majority of the Democratic Party including the Obama, Clinton, and Biden families were against it. It sounds ridiculous now but Donald Trump was the most LGBT friendly president in history at the time of his first inauguration. Wait to see what he does now or find a more recent position.