Washington Post editorial board thinks it’s a good first step:
Here is a nearly identical thread in MPSIMS. I’ve notified the mods for possible combination of both or closure of one. The thread below is in the correct forum for news and has a much more descriptive title.
Wow, so he has recommended the use of condoms in Africa to prevent aids? that’s incredible. You’ll have no problem providing a cite for that.
What claims of moral authority do Ford make? or the world’s billionaires? or the Royals? The moment they do I’ll level criticism at them as well.
The head of the Church of England is Elizabeth II.
I think it was actually Benedict XVI, believe it or not.
The C of E is equally hypocritical when it comes to their piles of cash and palaces. Less so about the Aids problem in Africa.
It was a morally weak statement. Nothing less than a positive endorsement would do and that was far, far less than that.
While the OP is overplaying it, I think some of you are underplaying it. Unless the Church has said specifically that same sex civil unions are okay in the past, then this is still a big deal.
Sure, you can say that previous declaration could support this opinion, but there’s still a difference between something that can be supported, and something stated by the head honcho himself.
And, yes, the Pope was not speaking infallibly, so this could be changed by the next Pope or ignored by a more conservative church. But it still sets the default, making it where any Roman Catholic who supports same-sex partnerships can cite the Pope himself. Heck, since any marriage outside the Church is not considered marriage, you could argue that it allows gay civil marriages.
And, yes, other Christians won’t listen any more than they did to the Episcopalians. Still, the more denominations accept these things, the bigger the momentum. Consider all the non-Catholics who seem to object to birth control, despite it not really being forbidden in any mainline Protestant Christianity. Or, heck, take abortion, which came from the Catholic prohibition, as it’s not in the Bible itself.
It’s a good move, and since the OP is a Catholic, I understand him being a “bit giddy” simply to not have to deal with having to justify supporting gay people to his fellow Catholics anymore.
Still, that title and the adulates are a bit too much. It’s just a positive change.
I don’t know about the ex cathedra thing. I just assumed whenever the Pope spoke, he was speaking officially.
I think it is still a radical departure though. The new Catholic catechism does take an unusually moderate view of homosexuality. But it also says under ‘no circumstances can they be approved of’. So AFAIK, that would still apply to what the Pope was doing.
Also, I know Roman Catholicism is often put in the same category with Christian fundamentalism, in the USA, at least. There is even a blanket term for that, that at the present time escapes me. Does anyone else know the term? It would be helpful, not just to me, but to the discussion, I think 
.
Did it ever apologize for the Spanish Inquisition?
I’m Jewish, and have really mixed feelings about the RC Church.
On the one hand, lots of lower-level institutions have been heroic-- a convent school saved my aunt’s (actually, the sister of my aunt-by-marriage, but I’ve always called her “aunt”) life by “hiding” her in the open during the Holocaust-- and she didn’t realize it at the time, but something like 5% of the girls in the school were Jewish girls with false papers-- they were all posing as orphaned nieces of congregant members, and with so many real war orphans in the country at the time, no one blinked.
But then, the Church as a world power has done some really terrible things.
And when I did clinic defense in the 1980s and 90s, I butted heads with some Roman Catholics who claimed to care about “life,” but it was pretty clear they cared about birth, and what happened after that they didn’t give a damn. I had more respect for a group of fundamentalist Christians who ran a charity that was aimed at helping women who were single mothers, whether they needed diapers or help filing a paternity suit, the charity really was there for the long haul-- it it even provided low-cost after school care for working single mothers with elementary schoolers. It didn’t make me agree with their stance, but at least it made them less hypocritical than people who had no interest whatsoever in helping women struggling to care for infants on their own.
There was one group sponsored by a Catholic church (albeit, not all members were Catholic, but they held meetings at the church), who played really dirty. They took pictures of women’s cars parked in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic in a college town, and tracked them down-- if they were students, the group sent copies of the photos to the women’s parents “informing” on them, which is to say, telling their parents in a very nastily-worded letter that she was availing herself of birth control and abortion (whether that was the case or not-- she could have been there for a Pap test).
And considering how long same-sex marriage has been legal in the come-lately US, I’d say that the RC Church is a bit more than fashionably late to this party. I don’t think I’ll be dancing in the streets.
I don’t know but it was certainly quick to apologise for the whole Galileo affair, well, for a given value of “quick” that is ( 350 years after the fact…1992!)
There are some wonderful people who are catholic who do and have done heroic things but “The Catholic Church” as an official entity has a far less admirable record in dealing with the Nazi regime and in their own attitude to Jewish people. Heck, The catholic charge of Jewish deicide was not officially repudiated until Vatican II in 1962.
I am acutely aware of this.
I have also been told so many times that I lost track that the Catholic church could not speak out against the Nazis, and risk investigations, because of the large number of Jews being hidden in Catholic institutions and homes. I may very well punch the next person who says that to me.
Ford > Chevy.
Pope Francis did.
And yes, the Church has done some terrible things. Name some power that has been around for over a millenium that hasnt. Muslims? England? The USA? Go back far enuf and you will find that the people in those days had a different morality than we do today. Everybody did terrible things.
FWIW here is the reaction to the Pope’s statement: https://www.cardinalburke.com/presentations/statement-pope-francis-civil-unions
It’s not the reaction, it’s a reaction by one ultra-conservative cardinal.
I’m sure there’s a range of opinion within the Church.
It is a source of deepest sadness… that the private opinions… attributed to Pope Francis do not correspond to the constant teaching of the Church…
In other words, fuck the Pope… but NOT literally. 
“Muslim Church?”
The Catholics are positively harmonious on this issue compared to the Methodists. The United Methodist Church is about to be not-so-united anymore.
I have to say, if it weren’t for Catholic Charities, my mother’s final illness would’ve been much more difficult. I couldn’t have kept her at home for as long as I did.
If the Catholics are radical about anything it’s helping the poor. I have major issues with Catholicism but in my community work we do align on the general principle of caring for one another’s basic needs. That includes immigrants, who are frequently shunned by others claiming to be Christian.
I once worked for a Catholic organization that taught English to immigrants in Philadelphia. The nuns were the coolest ladies you’d ever meet.