It's forged in part by the Vatican's own official communications channels, but even more so by outside commentators and media platforms heavily invested in selling a given pope's story to the world.

Throughout his papacy, John Paul II enjoyed a wide network of friendly commentators and analysts, forever prepared to interpret the pope in the best possible light.

Benedict XVI had his own support system, though smaller and quieter by comparison.

The fact that Francis has such a coterie - not the same people, obviously, but doing much the same thing - has been made abundantly clear in the last 24 hours or so.

It is clear vis-à-vis news reports that he used a crude slang term in referring to homosexuals in a May 20 session with Italian bishops.

Ironically, it's possible that in this case, the pope's mediatic Praetorian Guard actually may be misrepresenting the pontiff in order to save him, but more on that in a moment.

Private meeting

To set the scene, on May 20 Pope Francis was in the Vatican's synod hall in order to address the spring plenary assembly of the Italian Episcopal Conference (known by the acronym CEI).

There were roughly 230 bishops in the room, along with other clergy and supporting staff, meaning this wasn't just a casual chat among a handful of friends.

Technically, Francis's remarks to CEI are considered private, meaning the Vatican doesn't release an official transcript.

Yet with that many people in the room - some of whom, by the way, have awfully cosy relationships with reporters - it's generally foreordained that whatever the pope says will get out.

Certainly, the media-savvy Francis would have understood that whatever he said in that space was unlikely to stay there.

The gossips say

One of the topics that arose at the meting was the question of the admission of homosexual men to Catholic seminaries. Soon afterwards, rumors began to circulate.

It was said that Francis had used an off-colour term in the context of the discussion, saying there's already too much frociaggine in seminaries, which translates roughly to "faggotry."

The root term in Italian is frocio, the most widely used pejorative term in Italian for a gay man, the etymology of which has been lost in time.

(One theory traces it back to the 1527 sack of Rome, when feroci, or "ferocious", invading troops supposedly raped men and women indistinctly, but nobody really knows.)

The suffix -aggine denotes a quality or characteristic; for instance, Italians take the word stupido (which means what you think) and turn it into stupidaggini to convey acts of stupidity, i.e., "nonsense."

A matter of language

The rumour that Francis used the word was first made public by the Italian blog Dagospia, which is more or less the country's equivalent of the Drudge Report,

It was then picked up by mainstream media, first in Italy and then around the world.

In presenting the news, a striking share of media outlets have done so in ways seemingly intended to take the pope off the hook.

They note high up in their coverage that Italian is not his mother tongue and suggest he may not have understood that the term in question is offensive.

One prominent Italian newspaper, for example, pointed out that growing up in Argentina, the future pope spoke the Piedmont dialect rather than today's standard Italian.

It quoted unnamed bishops present at the time who said "it was obvious Francis was not aware of how much in our language the word is weighty and offensive."

Many media outlets also suggested the pope must not have known what he was saying, given his reputation as the pope of "Who am I to judge?"

Francis has built a reputation for being LGBTQ+-friendly, so the coverage holds, meaning that he must have used the term almost accidentally, without intending to shock or offend.

What should be made of these interpretations? Read more

• John L. Allen Jr. is the editor of Crux, specialising in coverage of the Vatican and the Catholic Church.

Martin's workspace is filled with objects that evoke his personal journey as a Jesuit priest who has worked with gang members in Boston as well as refugees in Kenya.

Next to his computer, there's a photo of him conversing with Pope Francis during a meeting in 2019 at the Vatican. This was the first of four one-on-one encounters the two Jesuits have now had.

"It was one of the highlights of my life," Martin recalls.

"I am not a cardinal, archbishop, bishop, or even a university president. Why would a pope want to meet me?"

Only one of many voices

He knows the answer. At 63 years old, the American Jesuit is one of the leading advocates for including LGBT people within the Catholic Church.

He has both the trust and ear of Francis.

In 2017, the pope appointed him as a consultant to the Dicastery for Communication. And last year, he asked him to participate in the Synod assembly on the future of the Church.

Ever since the publication of Fiducia supplicans, the controversial declaration the Vatican's doctrinal office issued last December that allows priests the possibility of blessing same-sex couples, Martin proudly states he has done so four times.

"I am just one of many voices speaking to the pope on this issue," he says, downplaying his role in this development.

"What does this community need to do to be recognised by the Church?"

The LGBT cause has not always been central for Martin.

Before being ordained a priest, this child of a French teacher and a businessman pursued a career in accounting and human resources at the American conglomerate General Electric.

"I was a yuppie," he says. "I made a good living, lived in New York, went to nightclubs, and spent a lot of money."

But he grew weary of that lifestyle after a few years.

He saw a documentary about the Trappist monk Thomas Merton, but he didn't even know what a monastery was.

In the end, he decided to become a Jesuit.

He first began writing about LGBT Catholics in the 1990s in the pages of America because "the issue was little addressed at the time".

He faced his first controversy in 2000 when he wrote an article about gay priests. But it wasn't until sixteen years later that he decided to make recognition of LGBT people the focus of his ministry.

The turning point was the death of 49 people on June 12, 2016 at "Pulse", a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

"Very few bishops spoke out after this shooting, the deadliest in the country's history. And even fewer used the word 'gay'," Martin says.

"I thought to myself - ‘what does this community need to do to be recognised by the Church?' Is dying not enough?"

After the nightclub shooting, he began participating in conferences, appearing in major news media, and writing books like Building a Bridge (HarperOne, 2018).

His aim was to urge the Catholic Church to "listen" to its LGBT members rather than "treat them as sinners who need to be scrutinised for life".

He even became the subject of a 2021 documentary produced by the famous director Martin Scorsese.

And since 2022, he has been running "Outreach", a website affiliated with America that is dedicated to LGBT Catholics.

"I'm not one to seek controversy"

His notoriety has earned him enemies, including many bishops, who accuse him of wanting to distort Catholic teaching.

"Jesus welcomed the marginalized, that's what I do," he says in defense of his work.

"I'm not one to seek controversy. I would prefer to write about saints and prayer, but I've gotten used to being hated."

While he sees Fiducia supplicans as a "huge" advancement, he does not believe it marks a step towards recognising homosexual unions.

"LGBT Catholics have accepted that this point will not change. All they want is to be treated as human beings," he says.

"By excluding these people, we are also closing the doors of our churches to their parents, siblings, and friends. In the past, they would have sought their place within the Church. Now, they prefer to leave."

• First published in La Croix International
• James J. Martin SJ is an American Jesuit Catholic priest, writer, and editor-at-large of the Jesuit magazine America and the founder of Outreach.

People should be helped to understand the issue better, Turkson says.

La Croix International reports that the comment is at odds with the Ghana Catholic Bishops' conference, and has stoked outrage on social media.

"The position of the Catholic Church on LGBTQIA+ has remained the same; such practices are against not only Christian values, but Muslim and Ghanaian Traditional values as well," the bishops said.

"May God have mercy on him," posted one Ghanaian Catholic.

"Just because you're a Catholic leader doesn't mean that, whatever you say, Catholics can listen and do it," said another person on Facebook. "We have the right to oppose and no one can impose the law on us!"

Turkson's views are also at odds with Ghana's parliamentary discussions about a bill imposing harsh penalties on LGBT people.

Turkson, who has at times been regarded as a future candidate to become pope, says "LGBT people may not be criminalised because they've committed no crime.

"It's time to begin education, to help people understand what this reality, this phenomenon is. We need a lot of education to get people to... make a distinction between what is crime and what is not crime" he went on to say.

Law change proposed

In July, Ghanaian MPs backed a proposed bill that would make identifying as LGBT punishable with a three-year prison sentence.

People who campaign for LGBT rights could also face up to 10 years in jail.

At the moment, the bill has not completed its passage through parliament,

Gay sex is already against the law in Ghana. It carries a three-year prison sentence.

Catholic view - bishops, cardinal, pope

Turkson's views on the proposed law change challenge Ghana's Catholic bishops' views.

The bishops say homosexuality is "despicable".

In August, they made a statement along with other leading Ghanian Christian groups.

Western countries should "stop the incessant attempts to impose unacceptable foreign cultural values on us" the Catholic Herald newspaper reported the bishops as saying.

Cardinal Turkson refutes homosexuality as an outside imposition on Ghanian people.

He points to the Akan language (one of several Ghanian languages).

In Akan there is an expression "men who act like women and women who act like men". He argued that this was an indication that homosexuality was not an imposition from outside, Turkson says.

"If culturally we had expressions... it just means that it's not completely alien to the Ghanaian society."

Turkson thinks the current efforts to pass strict anti-gay measures in several African countries stem from "attempts to link some foreign donations and grants to certain positions... in the name of freedom, in the name of respect for rights".

Pope Francis is indicating the Church is willing to be more inclusive of homosexual love. Last month he suggested he would be open to having the Catholic Church bless same-sex couples.

"Neither should this position also become... something to be imposed on cultures which are not yet ready to accept stuff like that."

Source

• BBC
• La Croix International

Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, has written an official note to the German Bishops' Conference secretary general, Beate Gilles to clarify the Vatican's stance on the German Synodal Path reform proposals.

Non-negotiable issues

Some issues are "non-negotiable", Parolin told Gilles, who shared Parolin'sofficial note with the German diocesan bishops.

These issues include the German Synodal Path project and its debates about the ordination of women and homosexuality.

The Vatican is not considering negotiating the Church's teaching on homosexuality, Parolin wrote.

Nor is it open to debating the letter"Ordinatio Sacerdotalis". That's the letter Pope John Paul II reaffirmed that women were excluded from ordination to the priesthood.

The 23 October letter also reminded the bishops of potential disciplinary consequences for anyone defying Church teaching.

Visit to Rome

In July, German bishops went to Rome to discuss the Synodayl Path with the heads of several Vatican dicasteries.

They tried again after October's Rome-based Synod on Synodality. Among them were German bishops' conference, president Bishop Georg Bätzing and Gilles.

Talks they began with several heads of dicasteries will be continued in 2024, the bishops conference says.

News reports say the heads of the dicasteries for doctrine, ecumenical relations, bishops, liturgy and sacraments, and for legal texts want to meet representatives of the German bishops next January, April and June.

During those meetings, they will discuss what can and cannot be changed in regard to Church doctrine and discipline.

The themes up for discussion include ecclesiology, anthropology, moral teaching and liturgy and the relevant texts of the Synodal Path.

Global reform underway

Although meetings between the German bishops and the Vatican have been arranged, Parolin's letter points out that a global synodal process is underway.

"It is therefore necessary to respect this path of the Universal Church and to avoid the impression that parallel initiatives are underway that are indifferent to the endeavor to 'journey together,'" Parolin wrote.

The Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK) says there had been pre-Synod movement on reform in the Vatican - within the curia and also between the curia and the pope.

ZdK President Irme Stetter-Karp notes, for example, that Cardinal Parolin had said it was impossible to give women voting rights in the synod because that would contradict canon law.

"And what did our pope do? Suddenly it was legal and was put into practice," she says.

Pope Francis recently expressed his concern about concrete initiatives some German dioceses and the Catholic Church in Germany as a whole are taking.

These include establishing a German synodal council, which Francis said threatens to steer the Catholic Church in Germany away from the universal church.

Source

• Katholisch.de
• CNA
• UCA News

In it, we come to a question - of what we believe about human dignity, including sexuality - that is deeply dividing, not only for Anglicans but for every part of God's global church.

This conference is one of the few places where we can meet and be honest with each other about what we think, listen to others and pray together.

In some churches, like the Anglican Communion, the disagreement is open. In others, it is behind locked doors. But in all it is real. And in all the subject is of the greatest importance.

Most of the Call on Human Dignity (including sexuality) is uncontentious. None of us would want to argue for sexual violence in conflict, abuse of the vulnerable or violence against minorities or women.

But paragraph 2.3 is very different. For some here, it will be a great relief.

There is no attempt being made to alter the historic teaching of the vast majority of Churches of the Anglican Communion. For some, this paragraph will be hugely painful, and agonizing emotionally, for it is felt by many to state that who they are and who they love is wrong, that they are less than fully human.

So in this very brief address, please let me state some important principles.

First, the Call is about Human Dignity and also about Sexuality.

The reason the two are combined is that its central theological foundation is that all human beings are of equal worth, loved by God and are those for whom Jesus died on the Cross and rose to life. As St Paul says again and again in Romans "there is no distinction".

Second, as we discuss this, we are all vulnerable.

For the large majority of the Anglican Communion the traditional understanding of marriage is something that is understood, accepted and without question, not only by Bishops but their entire Church, and the societies in which they live.

For them, to question this teaching is unthinkable, and in many countries would make the church a victim of derision, contempt and even attack. For many churches to change traditional teaching challenges their very existence.

For a minority, we can say almost the same.

They have not arrived lightly at their ideas that traditional teaching needs to change. They are not careless about scripture.

They do not reject Christ.

But they have come to a different view on sexuality after long prayer, deep study and reflection on understandings of human nature.

For them, to question this different teaching is unthinkable, and in many countries is making the church a victim of derision, contempt and even attack.

For these churches not to change traditional teaching challenges their very existence.

So let us not treat each other lightly or carelessly.

We are deeply divided.

That will not end soon.

We are called by Christ himself both to truth and unity.

Third, there is no attempt to change people's minds in this Call.

It states as a fact that the vast majority of Anglicans in the large majority of Provinces and Dioceses do not believe that a change in teaching is right.

Therefore, it is the case that the whole of Lambeth 1.10 1998 still exists.

This Call does not in any way question the validity of that resolution.

The Call states that many Provinces - and I say again, I think we need to acknowledge it's the majority - continue to affirm that same-gender marriage is not permissible.

The Call also states that other provinces have blessed and welcomed same-sex union or marriage, after careful theological reflection and a process of reception.

In that way, it states the reality of life in the Communion today.

As is said in the letter, and I re-emphasise, there is no mention of sanctions, or exclusion, in 1.10 1998.

There is much mention of pastoral care.

As Lambeth 1.10 also states: "all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ" and to be welcomed, cared for, and treated with respect (I.10, 1998).

Fourth, many people are watching and listening, both inside and outside the Church.

But we bishops, you alone and I are responsible for what is decided on this Call.

When we will all answer to God on the day of judgement, we will not be able to say - and there is no vote today, but when at some point if ever we make a decision on this - we will not be able to say that I voted this or that way because others told me too.

Please, therefore, be present, in this room or online, today. Do not spend the time looking on your phone at what others outside the room are saying.

You are the shepherds of your flock as I am the shepherd of the flock that I serve.

Let us not act in a way that disgraces our witness.

Speak frankly, but in love.

Finally, a short comment on my own thinking.

I am very conscious that the Archbishop of Canterbury is to be a focus of unity and is an Instrument of Communion.

That is a priority.

Truth and unity must be held together, but Church history also says that this sometimes takes a very long time to reach a point where different teaching is rejected or received.

I neither have, nor do I seek, the authority to discipline or exclude a church of the Anglican Communion.

I will not do so.

I may comment in public on occasions, but that is all. We are a Communion of Churches, not a single church.

I want to end by repeating this line from the Call on Human Dignity: "As Bishops we remain committed to listening and walking together to the maximum possible degree, despite our deep disagreement on these issues.

Sister and brothers, may I thank you for your patience in listening to me."

Source

• Anglican.ink

Br Markus Fuhrmann (centre) publicly came out as homosexual a few weeks ago.

"If I am gay myself, then I want to show that I can also be part of the Church in this ministry," he said in explanation of his coming out.

"That's important because it's not supposed to be like that in the Church. Unfortunately, there is too much institutional hypocrisy in our Church."

He said his Franciscan brothers knew of his homosexuality at the time of his election. "It was very good for me to know that this is very positive for the brothers.

"I get a lot of encouragement, and maybe that spark of appreciation can spread to other areas of the Church. I think that's good," he added.

While Fuhrman supports the efforts of the Synodal Way, he said he's "in favour of a critical rethinking of celibacy in the priestly way of life and I am in favour of women having access to ordained ministries."

The new Franciscan leader was born on August 9, 1971, in Hannover. He made his simple vows in 1998, his solemn profession in 2003 and was ordained a priest on May 7, 2005.

In Cologne he ministered to the indigent. Before his election, he served as provincial vicar.

Today, he says "a big change is imminent, and I want and must shape it together with the brothers."

The Church's teaching on homosexuality

Catholic teaching on homosexuality is summarised in sections 2357, 2358, and 2359 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Church teaches that homosexuals "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided".

As the Catechism explains: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.

"They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

Providing further guidance, the catechism says, "Homosexual persons are called to chastity.

"By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

Source

• CNZ

On the basis of its understanding, the CDF concluded that the Church cannot officially bless people in same-gender unions that approximate marriage.

The Magisterium teaches that homosexuality is a ‘disordered nature' and classifies homosexual lovemaking as ‘intrinsically disordered' [CCC:2357].

In the Catechism, ordered nature reflects God's creation of male and female human beings who are made for each other.

This principle could be described as exclusively heterosexual.

The magisterial understanding of sexuality is derived from this principle. Sexuality ‘concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate', creating the ‘aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others' [CCC:2332] and is ‘ordered to the conjugal love of a man and a woman' [CCC:2360].

The Magisterium's understanding of creation and sexuality is heavily criticised for being binary and considered outdated.

Many suggest that sexuality differentiates itself between sexual attraction, physical attraction, and emotional attraction and is not essentially related to procreation or the capacity to love.

The strongest critics of the Responsum accuse the CDF of ignoring the last 100 -plus years of research into human sexuality. They argue that maintaining the theology of ‘disordered nature' on the assumption that the ‘psychological genesis [of homosexuality] remains largely unexplained' [CCC: 2357] is incorrect.

Critics argue that a necessary distinction between sexual orientations and sexualities is required and that one should see sexuality as given, diverse and personal.

The desire to bless same-sex unions challenges the Magisterium's binary view of creation and sexuality and reveals the essential question; on what basis can one say that a person's nature is ‘intrinsically disordered', their lovemaking a ‘grave depravity', and still bring them into union with Christ?

Asking if the Church can bless same-sex unions puts into question the CDF's use of the primary sources on which the magisterial teaching is built; its interpretation of scripture and the presumption that the "natural law" is fully known and not itself subject to growth in understanding.

This starting point is critical for how we understand a blessing given to a couple sharing the same gender.

It brings us back to the larger perspective:

• what is the nature and place of homosexuality and homosexual lovemaking in the order of creation?
• how does homosexuality and lovemaking participate in the "blessing of God? and
• if sexuality a blessing of God, then how it is defined, and by whom it is defined is critical.

The Blessing

The debate concerning the blessing is, by comparison, a sidebar.

It is important only because the theological pathway from blessing to ecclesial act and sacramental—that resembles a sacrament—is full of potholes.

To make this clearer I will distinguish between a blessing and a benediction.

A blessing (noun) is a request to God to care for someone or something, it is also an act to make someone, or oneself, happy.

A benediction (noun) combines the Latin words bene meaning well and dicere to say Benedicere: to wish well and is to say something good to another as a prayer, invocation, or dedication.

According to the Catechism [1078ff], blessing is in the nature of God; the whole of God's work is blessing and while everything and everyone who exists is also a blessing of God, the whole of the created order needs salvation because it is fallen.

The Catechism states that the dignity of each individual person is rooted in his, or her creation in the image and likeness of God (1700, 1702).

Blessing, as we commonly use it, is a prayer for God's favour or the dedication of an individual or object and parents bless their heterosexual and homosexual children all the time, long before any heterosexual or homosexual tendencies become manifest, and priests bless water, oil, and wedding rings.

However, there has to be more to a blessing to turn it from natural water into holy water.

That "more" is the power of the ordained who makes the benediction; this is the basis of resemblance.

The additional "power" of the priest's benediction is seen where parishioners ask Father to bless their candles, dogs, and cars, because his benediction is recognised as qualitatively different from their own.

What makes one a blessing and other a benediction is

• the nature of reciprocity—who has the capacity to give and receive a blessing;
• the priest acting with the power of ordination in the name of the Church; and
• the intention of the blessing and its resemblance to a sacrament.

Some suggest parents blessing their homosexual child on their child's wedding day is possible.

While laypeople may preside at some blessings ‘the more a blessing concerns ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests or deacons)' [CCC1669].

A benediction is a sacramental when it is received by a person who has the capacity to receive it—reciprocity—or when it is given to an object that will be used in sacred rites, such as a baptismal font.

When an ordained man gives a benediction, the benediction is implicitly reliant on the power of the priesthood.

The Responsum acknowledges that a benediction for an individual with homosexual inclinations remains licit as for example in a religious profession, which affirms a woman or man in their non-sacramental chosen lifestyle.

However, a benediction is not permitted for two people (hetero - or homosexual) entering a "marriage-like state" because the state resembles the sacrament of matrimony and the benediction would resemble the nuptial blessing.

According to the Responsum's explanatory note, a benediction cannot be given to people whose relationship is not ‘objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace according to the designs of God inscribed in creation and fully revealed by Christ the Lord'.

To do this is to ‘bless sin'.

At this level there is no distinction between couples on the basis of their sexual preference; neither can be given a benediction.

The issue for the same-sex couple is not their singularity as gay people but the nature of their relationship, and within it, their lovemaking.

Because their loving making is considered ‘intrinsically disordered' their relationship is seriously at fault.

At this point we return, again, to consider the theological reciprocity between nature, sexuality, and acts of lovemaking.

The CDF concludes that when a sacramental resembles a sacrament a benediction cannot be given by the Church's minister because the blessing moves from being "just" a blessing to an ‘ecclesial liturgical action', or an act of the Church, that invokes the priesthood of Christ, and God—in Christ—can not bless sin.

Sacramentals are ‘sacred signs that bear a resemblance to the sacraments [because] they signify effects, particularly of a spiritual nature, which are obtained through the intercession of the Church' for people who are ‘disposed to receive the chief effects of the sacraments' (Sacrosanctum Concilium 60).

This definition draws together the connections between the recipient's disposition, the church's prayer, and the Church's minister.

Together, these form a single unit that brings a sacramental into the orbit of a sacrament.

Critically, the Catechism [1670] states: ‘sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do' but through them, believers are prepared through the Church's prayer ‘to received grace' and disposed ‘to cooperate with' grace.

It also states that sacramentals ‘derive from the baptismal priesthood' and ‘every baptised person is called to be a blessing and bless'.

There are three points to note:

• that a benediction is not a sacrament,
• benedictions dispose; and
• benedictions are related to baptism.

What is not made explicit in the Responsum is the role of baptism in the reception of a benediction.

Some theologians argue that when two baptised individuals enter a same-sex union they already possess the theological capacity to receive a benediction just as baptised heterosexual couples receive the nuptial blessing.

Some suggest that because the Church's minister is a witness to the matrimony, and not the minister of it, in a similar way he has the capacity to impart a benediction in the name of the Church on a same-sex couple. This is especially the case if the couple are not intending a sacramental union.

Christian sacraments are sacred signs instituted by Christ to give grace and to save, and the sacrament of baptism is a celebration of God's sanctifying presence, transforming people and human experience.

Baptism is not reliant on, or referent to, a person's sexuality—however, this is understood.

Every baptised person enjoys the purification from sin, new birth in the Holy Spirit and incorporation into the Body of Christ.

All baptised persons receive a sacramental character that consecrates them for Christian worship, enabling them to participate in the sacred liturgy, to serve God and ‘to exercise their baptismal priesthood by witness of holy lives and practical charity [Lumen Gentium 10].

Proponents of benedictions for same-gender couples argue that baptism is the legitimate basis for the blessing of baptised same-gender partners.

They point out that the nature, purpose, intention, and use of any benediction must correspond to the nature and effects of baptism.

They argue that because a person with homosexual tendencies, created in God's image and likeness, can be baptised—receiving the effects and grace of the sacrament and incorporation into the Body of Christ—that person possesses the theological capacity to receive the Church's benediction in virtue of their baptism, and not in virtue of the power of an ordained minister.

Where this argument is accepted, refusing two baptised people of the same-sex, who live lives of faith, a benediction when they are choosing and intending a life-long relationship, that is not intended to be sacramental matrimony, is not possible, it is required.

At this point the argument for a benediction of same-sex union moves in a pastoral direction, suggesting that if the Church were to bless same-sex unions then it would remove the pain and suffering from the lives of some of its own members.

It is argued that the Church, by openly acknowledging and blessing such unions, would be seen to affirm the baptismal call of its members to live—in public—stable relationships of mutual and lasting fidelity.

Those who disagree see here the first step towards extending the sacrament of matrimony to same-sex couples. This concern cannot be avoided.

The sacramental character of matrimony and the resemblance of a civil union to it is an inaccurate use of resemblance.

The resemblance of a sacramental benediction to a sacrament seems to imply a resemblance to either the character of the sacrament or to its Eucharistic Prayer, however, this is not outlined in the Responsum but is, nonetheless, critical to the debate.

Relying on the theological character of matrimony as the basis for denying benedictions to same-gender couples is risky given this sacrament's history and unique sacramental character.

In matrimony, the couple are both the ministers and the recipients of the sacrament—based on their baptism—and the church's minister is the witnesses.

Similarly, the concern with ‘a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing' is also problematic given that blessing's history and liturgical purpose.

The nuptial blessing's context is the Mass, coming after the Our Father and before the couple receives communion together.

The structure of the blessing is clearly a benediction and not a Eucharist Prayer—it does not confer the sacrament—because ‘it is ordinarily understood that the spouses, as ministers of Christ's grace, mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church' [CCC:1623].

The Church's minister ‘assists' at the marriage and receives the spousal consent and blesses in the name of the Church, thus making it (matrimony) an ecclesial act.

On the basis of this understanding, many conclude that the denial of a benediction for a baptised couple who share the same gender, based on the benediction's resemblance to the nuptial benediction in the liturgy of matrimony, is unwarranted.

Lastly, the Responsum states that ‘the Church does not have, and cannot have, the power to bless unions of persons of the same sex in the sense intended' but, Sacrosanctum Concilium 79—a higher teaching authority—suggests this might not be the whole story.

"The sacramentals are to undergo a revision which takes into account the primary principle of enabling the faithful to participate intelligently, actively, and easily; the circumstances of our own days must also be considered.

"When rituals are revised, as laid down in Art. 63, new sacramentals may also be added as the need for these becomes apparent.

"Reserved blessings shall be very few; reservations shall be in favour of bishops or ordinaries.

"Let provision be made that some sacramentals, at least in special circumstances and at the discretion of the ordinary, may be administered by qualified laypersons."

• Dr Joe Grayland is a theologian and a priest of the Diocese of Palmerston North. His latest book is titled: Catholics. Prayer, Belief and Diversity in a Secular Context (Te Hepara Pai, 2020).

Bishop Georg Bätzing, president of the German bishops' conference commented March 15 after the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) clarified that the Catholic Church does not have the power to give liturgical blessings of homosexual unions.

The CDF was asked: "Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?"

The doctrinal office's blunt reply was simply, "RESPONSE: Negative."

A one-and-half-page "explanatory note" immediately followed, saying the Catholic Church" declares illicit any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such."

CNA Deutsch has previously reported that Bätzing expressed support for same-sex blessings, saying that "we need solutions for this."

In his statement, Bätzing addressed the impact of the CDF's intervention on the "Synodal Path," a multi-year event bringing together German laypeople and bishops to discuss four major topics: the way power is exercised in the Church; sexual morality; the priesthood; and the role of women.

Bätzing said that the "Synodal Path" was seeking to address "the topic of successful relationships in a comprehensive way that also considers the necessity and the limits of ecclesial doctrinal development."

He added: "The points of view put forward today by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith must and will naturally find their way into these discussions."

Meanwhile, Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer of Regensburg welcomed the CDF document.

In a March 15 statement, he said: "The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has made it clear that the Church does not have the authority to bless same-sex partnerships. Pope Francis has approved the publication of the document and the accompanying explanations."

"With the pope and the members of the Family Synod of 2015, I also underline ‘that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while "every sign of unjust discrimination" is to be carefully avoided' (Amoris laetitia, 250)."

Sources

Catholic News Agency

La Croix International

Kolgraf says that answer has led him to think the Catholic Church needs a new pastoral approach to homosexual couples.

After becoming a bishop in 2017, Kolgraf says he was soon made aware that many different forms of blessings for homosexual couples already existed "and would continue to exist".

The purpose of these blessings was to "Bless what is good in their lives," he found.

"They [the blessings] are not modelled on Catholic liturgical wedding ceremonies, nor do they aim to achieve one standardized liturgy. Instead, the priests who accompanied such couples bless what is good in their lives," Kohlgraf explains.

This was why he supported the publication of a collection of blessing ceremonials for gay couples titled "Couples, Rites, Church" published last November.

Although he acknowledges most of the blessing ceremonials are "against Church law", Kohlgraf says they will continue to be used.

The focus on blessings for homosexual couples had increased markedly in the German Church in recent years.

In Kohlgraf's view, it would make little sense if he, as the bishop responsible, were to nullify the blessings.

"Do I really want to break that much china for people who are believers?" he asks.

Kohlgraf's perspective on homosexuals altered after the German Bishops' Conference held a series of discussions on homosexuality in 2019.

At this, the Conference read a report from medical experts that said:"the percentage of people who feel they are homosexually oriented in society is by no means small and homosexuality is a relevant phenomenon in the animal world."

The report led Kohlgraf to ask himself: "Are people who feel homosexually oriented imperfectly created? Did God slip up?"

He says he finds it difficult to imagine that something had gone wrong in the order of creation.

However, the Church's stance is hard on homosexuals, he points out.

Few homosexuals find the Catechism of the Catholic Church's stipulation that they practice chastity as "tactful and respectful," he says.

It also states homosexuals' inclination is not of their own choosing and asks for compassion for them - a stance Kohlgraf thinks could sound condescending.

"... I am amazed by how greatly the issue of homosexuality has gained ferocity in Church debates," he says.

Other German bishops' in favor of blessing homosexual couples include Franz-Josef Bode, who was the first German bishop to speak out openly in favor of the practice. That was in 2018.

"Remaining silent or tabooing the subject gets us nowhere," he said at the time, while demanding more discussion on the issue.

That same year, Cardinal Reinhard Marx came out in favor of blessing homosexual couples in individual cases after they had been accompanied by a priest.

In 2020, Bishop Heinrich Timmerevers said he would welcome blessings for homosexual couples.

He said he was against excluding people and could understand why gay couples would want a blessing.

Source

• La Croix
• Image: National Catholic Reporter

"It makes me want to cry. It makes me feel seen, like I'm not just making shit up." That's how Anna, who underwent conversion therapy as a young adult, describes the news that Labour will ban the controversial practice if re-elected.

Conversion therapy is a pseudoscientific technique that attempts to change or suppress someone's sexual orientation or gender identity through shaming, emotional manipulation and/or physical trauma so victims associate pain and discomfort with their queer identity.

The practice is primarily used within religious communities and has been linked to severe mental health issues, including depression and suicidal ideation.

It has already been banned in Queensland, Madrid and Ontario, and specifically for minors in Germany, Ecuador and Brazil.

National leader Judith Collins also opposes conversion therapy.

"I'm a parent and I have said to my son, and I hope other parents would also say this, ‘Just be who you are!'

That's unconditional love … Not trying to convert your child to anything else," she told Gay Express.

Still, the party has no policy on conversion therapy - or any rainbow policies.

Along with Labour, the Greens, the Maori Party and The Opportunities Party have voiced support for a conversion therapy ban.

A ban would make it in an offence for people, entities, or organisations to offer, advertise or perform conversion therapy on another person.

This includes performing conversion therapy as a professional, such as health practitioner, teacher or social worker. It would also make it an offence to knowingly remove a person from New Zealand for the purposes of conversion therapy.

So what does this damaging practice look like in New Zealand? Anna, who grew up in a tight-knit church community in Hamilton, talked to The Spinoff about what the experience was like for her.

What was it like learning about your sexuality?

I always knew I was attracted to women. But I didn't think it meant anything. It was only when I was around 18 years old, that someone I had a crush on had a crush on me back! I was like "woah, I'm not straight", and it's been a fucking whirlwind since then.

What kind of experiences did you have with the church?

When I was about 16, our youth pastor sat down and had a chat with us about homosexuality.

She said, "you might feel like you've got some feelings for your friends who are the same sex as you, but it's just a phase because you're going through puberty".

I remember arguing with her: "But my cousin's gay, and she's old. So it can't be puberty".

Our pastor also always told us that her husband was never her type, but one day she looked at him, and thought "wow I'm kinda attracted to him."

So I questioned her, what's the difference?

I asked because it didn't make logical sense to me.

A lot of people were homophobic behind each others' backs in the church.

I used to live in this house of church leadership and someone who was a lesbian had found us on this Christian flatmate website and came and viewed the flat.

After she left, everyone was like "ew no, what if I want to shower and walk around in my towel?"

After that, we had a church dinner at someone's house and it just went on and on, them expressing their disgust.

At that point, I was out to myself.

That's a lot to take in. You mentioned that you came out of the closet and then went back in. What happened?

When I first came out, I had people picking me up from my house to take me to prayer circles.

It was confusing because they were telling me to go to the healers because I was hurt.

But I was hurt because I was having moral conflicts - they thought I was hurt because I had fucking demons inside of me.

I cared about these people a lot and so I'd go with them. I felt pretty coerced into it.

What else was I going to do with these people showing up at my house?

Everything felt overwhelming so I moved to a new town.

But the only way I knew how to make friends was through church. So I went back to church and I went back into the closet because I wasn't going to be able to make friends otherwise.

A lot of people, think of conversion therapy as structured camps. But for you, it was people you loved and cared about turning up at your doorstep.

Absolutely.

The second time I came out, I was still living in that church leadership house.

I had these people I thought were going to be my bridesmaids telling me to watch videos of Sy Rogers. He was someone who used to preach about being an ex-gay Christian and so they'd send me these links.

Or I'd get home and [his videos] would just be on the TV because "if you really loved us, you'd just sit down and watch it".

Sy Rogers would say: "I'm married with a wife now and kids, but I still have to be careful when looking at men so I'm not tempted."

Well you're still gay then, aren't you?

I just couldn't take it seriously.

You're still gay, you've just dragged your wife and kids into it.

I had people doing prayer, sending me bible verses every day.

People telling me they couldn't be my friend anymore, and threatening to leave the church if I didn't leave.

I have the misfortune of being friends with people who've been exposed as being paid conversion therapists.

Sometimes I still feel funny talking about conversion therapy because it doesn't look like me sitting in a therapist's office going through that. It looks like pastors taking me out for coffee. Continue reading

They are tired of "little old men" who continue to "beat the drum of obedience," she says.

"I am a person of faith but I am also a person with a thinking brain."

The hierarchy of the Church is a small, self-serving hermetically-sealed group of men, she says.

Ireland's former president has vowed to spend her retirement challenging the Magisterium of the Church. It is "essentially the male bishops who regard themselves as the arbitrators of the Church's teaching," she says.

"Large chunks of that teaching are appalling... its appalling history of anti-Semitism."

"It has resiled from anti-Semitism ... sooner or later they will resile from sexism and homophobia because science and human rights will interrupt the integrity of their narrative, it no longer has any integrity for me."

"For me these are issues of human rights, I have a voice and I am going to use it for that purpose."

A longtime critic of the Church's position on human sexuality, McAleese says she voted to change Ireland's constitutional prohibition on abortion in a 2018 referendum.

She says she will continue to challenge Church teachings on homosexuality and women, adding: "What else I am going to do in retirement except make myself useful in that regard?"

McAleese was banned from speaking at a 2018 conference on women at the Vatican, an exclusion that occurred during the papacy of Pope Francis. Both his predecessors had welcomed her to the Vatican.

McAleese - who is a licensed canon lawyer and civil lawyer, has spoken out frequently against misogyny in the Church to no avail.

"I am ignored completely by the Church's hierarchy. Utterly, absolutely ignored. But that's ok because they're only a tiny proportion of the Church. They're desperately powerful, yes, and they make the rules, yes, but the Church is 1.2 billion people which is why I stay."

Spirituality is a "deeply beautiful thing" that shouldn't be tainted by "exclusivity and elitism," she says.

As the biggest NGO in the world, the Church is hugely influential and a permanent representative at the UN. "No other faith system has that power and influence in the world."

Ireland's former president hopes that by staying in the Church, one day her "tiny little voice" will permeate upwards, along with that of many others who, not satisfied with blind obedience, are speaking out.

"The truth of the matter is, people are walking away in droves. They are tired of these old men, trying to beat the drum of obedience, being obedient to teaching that is long past its sell-by date and needs to be revised, needs to be critiqued."

"We belong to a Church that is wonderful at talking out to the world from its moral pulpit. Wonderful for example on climate change...Pope Francis on migrants. Excellent. On outreach to the poor. Excellent."

"On women, atrocious. Women in the Church, atrocious. On protections for children who are abused, very weak and lacking in credibility still."

Source

• Crux Now
• The Tablet
• Image: Extra.ie

Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich SJ, recently admitted that he is "open" to the idea of ordaining women to the Catholic priesthood.

"I am not saying that women have to become priests; I just don't know. But I'm open to it," he said in an interview published by the German Catholic news agency.

Hollerich, who is Luxembourg's archbishop, is one of the world's most influential cardinals due to his position as president of the Commission of the Episcopal Conferences of the European Union.

Several German bishops - including German episcopal conference president Bishop Georg Bätzing - have also called for open discussion on ordaining women to the priesthood.

So far, none of them has been treated like Tony Flannery (pictured), a priest suspended from publicly practising their priesthood.

Flannery - an Irish Redemptorist priest - was suspended in 2012, for supporting women's ordination and his views on same-sex marriage and homosexuality.

In February the Redemptorists' Superior General in Rome wrote to the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) about Flannery's return to public ministry.

In response, the CDF said:

"After reflecting carefully upon your request, the Congregation has decided that Fr Flannery should not return to public ministry prior to submitting a signed statement regarding his positions on homosexuality, civil unions between persons of the same sex, and the admission of women to the priesthood."

Flannery says the CDF sent him a series of doctrinal proposals in July via his superior general, to which he would have to "submit" as a first step towards "a gradual readmission" to public ministry.

He must submit to the statement that "a baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly", as the price for "a gradual readmission" to the public ministry.

He must also submit to three other doctrinal formulae, affirming:

• homosexual practices are contrary to the natural law
• unions other than marriage between a man and a woman do not correspond to God's plan for marriage and family
• gender theory is not accepted by Catholic teaching.

Flannery says he's never expressed any views on so-called "gender theory" and is confused as to why that issue is in his CDF file.

He has refused to sign the CDF documents, saying:

"For me to sign a document that I submit that women can never be ordained priests in the Catholic church would be a total lie.

"I just could not live with myself if I signed that document. There are bishops - the German bishops for instance - many of whom have come out in favour of the ordination of women. It is very much an open question in the church now."

The CDF have not so far pressed Pope Francis to have Hollerich or other German prelates to recant and sign a fidelity oath as they have with Flannery.

Source

• La Croix
• Irish Times
• The Tablet
• Image: The Irish Times

The teachers from Kennedy Catholic High in Seattle both quit after getting engaged to their same-sex partners. After the news broke to the students, hundreds of them caused havoc by blocking corridors, protesting and staging a mass walk-out.

According to Metro, the teachers resigned "voluntarily", but one of the individuals said he had been forced out of the school after his engagement in November. Read more

The mother became concerned when Folau started inviting fellow players to the Truth of Jesus Christ Church in Sydney's north-west. The church was set up by Folau's father Eni in 2013.

The mother says she decided to attend the church herself and claims what she saw "disturbed her greatly."

"I honestly do not want my son involved in what I have come to understand is false teachings and counterfeit Christianity," she says.

"I've gone, I've checked it out and I would call them an isolated hate group."

Folau's cousin Josiah, who attends the same church, says the Catholic Church is "false and filled with lies.

"Any devout Catholic person is not a saved Christian ... Look at Catholic doctrine, almost 100% of it is false and is filled with lies," Josiah wrote to the concerned mother.

"The blasphemous Catholic mass is a paganistic ritual rooted in heresy, evil and devil worship.

"The Catholic Church is a synagogue of Satan and I one-hundred-per-cent believe and affirm that Roman Catholicism is masked devil worship," he added.

The Folau's church teaches the baptisms of most other mainstream Christian churches who believe in the Trinity are also false, the mother says.

The church also preaches against women deaconesses or preachers, and that homosexuality is a sin "worthy of death".

Folau believes any Christian who wasn't "born again" would go to hell and that anyone who wasn't baptised in the way of the Folaus is heading for hell.

Folau was recently sacked by the Wallabies after he made a controversial social media post in April saying homosexuals, fornicators, drunks, atheists and others were going to hell.

His views prove his congregation has deviated far from mainstream Christianity, Christian ministers say.

One describes Folau's church as a "sect".

According to the teachings of Folau's church, most Christians are bound for hell, including Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who belongs to the Australian megachurch Hillsong.

Also headed for hell are most of the donors who gave money to his legal defence fund which was organised by the Australian Christian Lobby.

Folau is battling with Rugby Australia for up to $10 million in damages, claiming he was unfairly sacked on religious grounds.

The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) paused donations for Folau's legal fund after it topped $2.2 million.

ACL managing director Martyn Iles says he has never heard Folau say "anything which contradicts mainstream Christian belief."

Source

• Yahoo Sport
• FoxSports
• Sydney Morning Herald
• Image: Newshub

I'm sure there were homosexual people in my classroom or community.

Possibly even in my extended family.

But they were not 'out'.

Even the prevailing culture did not engage with homosexuality: growing up in middle America in the '70s and '80s was still far more Happy Days than Glee.

To say I grew up in a Catholic enclave wouldn't be far wrong.

• I went to Catholic primary school, where my mother also taught.
• My dad was a Eucharistic minister in our parish.
• After attending an all-girls Catholic high school, I earned a BA in political science at a Catholic university, then spent a gap year teaching at a Catholic primary school.
• I met my husband at World Youth Day '91.
• Before we married, I headed back to university for a masters degree in theology and got my first proper job working as the NSW state youth coordinator for the Society of St Vincent de Paul.

As a legislator, I have voted for and promoted legislation that accords rights, such as adoption, to homosexual people.

I have publicly stated that I don't agree with the Church's teaching on homosexuality.

How did such a good Catholic girl arrive at what appears to be a non-Catholic position on this issue?

The first people I knew who acknowledged their homosexuality were fellow Catholics at university, living away from home for the first time, struggling with a very real question of who they were and how they should live.

My lack of knowledge about homosexuality meant I had very few presuppositions to confront.

I came to the questions of how to respond to homosexual people armed not with Vatican teachings and cultural assumptions, but simply with the Gospel message of 'love one another as I have loved you'.

What I witnessed were people who suffered greatly because of the judgement of their family and community; friends who were more acquainted with loneliness than with romantic relationships; devout Catholics, some with a true call to vocation, grieving because their own church had no place for them.

I realised no one would choose an orientation that brought such misery.

In time I came to ask what the Church taught on homosexuality, and why. Richard P. McBrien's seminal tome, Catholicism, explained the Vatican teachings acknowledging the validity of homosexual orientation while condemning homosexual activity.

McBrien also outlined other theological points of view, including the argument that homosexual acts are morally neutral, because the morality of a sexual act depends on the quality of the relationship of the people involved; or that homosexual acts are preferable to living a life where one can never give expression to one's sexuality.

Another significant influence on my thinking also came from my studies of Catholic doctrine: the inviolability of conscience.

Conscience is a tricky area when one wants to claim it as a basis for disagreeing with the Church's official teaching. It often leads to accusations of being a 'cafeteria Catholic', choosing only the parts of Church teaching you want to agree with. Continue reading

• Kristina Keneally is a member of the NSW Labor Party. She was the 42nd Premier of New South Wales.
• Image: West Australian

The question was unexpectedly left hanging in the wake of the final report of the Vatican's synod on young people, which ended Sunday (Oct. 28).

Produced in a unique collaboration between 249 bishops and some three dozen young adults, the approved summary of the proceedings nonetheless had offered a rather diluted and uninspiring welcome to LGBT Catholics.

But as happened in the previous two synods called by Pope Francis to promote a more consultative form of Catholic governance, sex - in particular homosexuality - became a flashpoint.

In fact, conservatives inside the synod hall, aided by conservative Catholic media outlets that amplified their views, waged an intense campaign to excise any mention of the acronym "LGBT" or the word "gay" from the final document.

The traditionalists, who ultimately succeeded, argued that both terms would have effectively validated homosexuality and thus could undermine Catholic teaching against same-sex relationships.

Yet their victory may prove to be more semantic than substantive. The problem for the conservatives lies in the first line of the relevant section of the final document. It reads:

"There are questions related to the body, to affectivity and to sexuality that require a deeper anthropological, theological and pastoral exploration, which should be done in the most appropriate way, whether on a global or local level.

Among these, those that stand out in particular are those relative to the difference and harmony between male and female identities and sexual inclinations."

Translation: The Catholic hierarchy is acknowledging that the church needs to update its understanding of the science of sex and gender, and that also means updating the church's theology on sexuality and its ministry to gay people.

The rest of the passage on homosexuality did seek to reassure traditionalists by reaffirming the "determinative" church view on "the difference and reciprocity between man and woman," and the passage said it was "reductive to define a person's identity solely on the basis of their sexual orientation."

But that first line, inviting "a deeper anthropological, theological and pastoral exploration," worried enough bishops that the section on sexuality passed by just two votes out of 230 cast.

"This document opens up so many minefields," the conservative website, LifeSiteNews, quoted a synod source saying.

Afterward, the opponents' worries only grew.

This section is one of the most "subtle and concerning" problems in the entire document, Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput, a member of the U.S. delegation and a leader of the conservative faction, told the National Catholic Register.

The Catholic Church "already has a clear, rich, and articulate Christian anthropology," Chaput told the Register.

"It's unhelpful to create doubt or ambiguity around issues of human identity, purpose, and sexuality, unless one is setting the stage to change what the church believes and teaches about all three, starting with sexuality."

Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, which advocates for LGBT Catholics, rarely agrees with churchmen like Chaput. But on this point they were in sync:

"The statement acknowledges that the church still has a lot to learn about sexuality," DeBernardo, wrote in a blog post after the synod.

Certainly, the Catholic research on homosexuality could use an update. Continue reading

Focusing on homosexuality, she says she cannot go to the World Meeting of Families when the Pope visits Ireland in August, as it does not include LGBTI people.

In her view, the Church's "evil" teaching on homosexuality gave rise to homophobia, ruining people's lives and causing them "to live in dark shadows."

"[The] World Meeting of Families, here was he [the Pope] saying it was for all God's family no matter what you believe, no matter what your set of circumstances, whether you're LGBTI, whether you're divorced and remarried ... you're welcome.

"And if you're like us, a family with two heterosexual children and one homosexual son who's married to his husband, you're in, you're members of God's family, come along."

However, the Meeting of World Families has moved from being a potentially inclusive event to an exclusive one, where her family no longer felt welcome, she says.

"Suddenly we were in the hands of a Church that is exclusive, that holds on to that book of laws and hits you over the head with it, uses it to exclude some and only include the chosen and I lost faith in it then ..."

McAleese says she was "heartbroken for the children that I have, that can't go now, who feel they are not wanted because we feel not wanted ... I think that's a pity because it could have been and still could be so great if they had got their message right."

Speaking of women and the church, McAleese commented the current Pope is no different from any of his predecessors when it comes to gender equality within the church.

"He's a disappointment ... he's made a few more appointments, but ... you know they increased visibility, not voice."

When it comes to the "issue of women in the Church," this is where "the curial, magisterial Church is so far behind the curve it is embarrassing" and arguments against the ordination of women as priests were "ultimately untenable," McAleese says.

Source

• Belfast Telegraph
• Irish Examiner
• Independent
• Image: joe.ie

A supporter of same-gender marriage, Turnbull defended the right of a church to refuse to marry a young couple who had posted support for same-sex unions on social media.

He was speaking after a Presbyterian minister had told a young couple in their 20s that they would not be allowed to hold their ceremony at the church after the bride posted a message on Facebook supporting same-gender marriage.

Pressed on whether the couple were being penalised for doing what he had encouraged them to do he said: "Churches are entitled to marry or not marry whom they please. That is part of religious freedom."

Australia is in the midst of a non-compulsory, non-binding survey to inform Parliament whether or not it should legalise same-gender marriage.

Labour leader Bill Shorten has also issued a promise to voters, saying he had been "raised to be a person of faith" and would make sure their concerns would be treated with respect.

"Labour will not support legislation which ­impinges upon religious freedom in this country," he said.

But former liberal party prime ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott have called for the government to outline protections for religious freedoms before the postal vote.

"Freedom of conscience should not be an afterthought from people who claim they support freedom," Abbott said.

A number of church leaders and legal scholars have also joined in the call for the government to outline protections for religious freedoms ahead of the vote.

Advocates for change have drafted a bill that confirms the rights of ministers of religion to refuse to solemnise a same-gender marriage as well as the rights of ­religious organisations to refuse to provide services for wedding functions that breach their faith.

The lead proponent of this bill, Liberal senator Dean Smith, said those who considered these safeguards ­inadequate should offer "detailed legislative remedies" to address the issue.

Source

• Channel News Asia
• Straits Times
• The Australian
• MSN
• Image: MSN

The proposed Crimes Bill 2017 was presented after the Cook Islands Parliament established a committee to review public submissions about amending the Crimes Act.

Some religious leaders are opposing the change.

"If a person chooses to live a homosexual, bisexual, or transgender lifestyle, he or she is choosing a perversion of God's good design," claimed Tevai Matapo a senior church minister.

"The only hope for the abolition of the hatred and mistreatment of any group of people, including those engaged in sexual sin, is in submitting to God and being washed clean by Jesus Christ," he said.

The Te Tiare Association is the Cook Islands' only LGBTI group.

Valentino Wichman, who led the group's submission, has since called on the committee to make sure that there were no other parts of the new bill that would criminalise homosexuality.

"What people tend to forget is that there is a very real personal aspect to this argument of decriminalising homosexuality," Wichman explained in his submission.

"Everyone has a family member or friend that is lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transsexual, queer or intersex. There are real people affected behind this debate."

Vanuatu, Fiji, Palau and Nauru have have decriminalised homosexuality.

In Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga and Tuvalu, anti-homosexuality law applies only to men.

Homosexuality is illegal in Solomon Islands for both men and women.

Source

• RNZ
• Eikon
• Image: Samoaplanet

Bishop Antônio Carlos Cruz Santos of Caicó says his intention was to "save lives" and help "overcome prejudices that kill."

"When you look at homosexuality, you cannot say it's an option … It's given by God. But perhaps our prejudices do not get the gift of God.

"The Gospel par excellence is the Gospel of inclusion. [It] is a narrow door, yes, it is a demanding love, but it is a door that is always open."

However not everyone thinks his words were as wise as they might have been.

Daniel Mattson, a same-sex-attracted Catholic and author of "Why I Don't Call Myself Gay," says Santos's words will do the opposite.

"If homosexuality is a gift, and therefore it's good, then why is it not good to act upon it?" he says.

"There's a logical inconsistency there that's going to lead to a lot of confusion, especially for young people, which will actually lead to more damage. Because when they live outside God's plan for human sexuality, that always leads to unhappiness and despair."

Source

• Lifesite
• Catholic Culture
• Image: Bondings 2.0