Talk:Pope Francis

Deaconess

@KlayCax: It doesn't look like deaconesses are directly mentioned in this Wikipedia article's. Please understand that the lead follows from the body—make additions there first. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey, @Pbritti:. The deaconesses wording wasn't added by me. It's been in the article for awhile. I reinstated the women priest wording - albeit it's been in the article for a much shorter period of time.

There's no need for personal attacks. KlayCax (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax: You're adding UNDUE material—that's not a personal attack. You're also right up against 3RR. Again, do not include material in the lead when it is not discussed in the body. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax: It should be added that the material you have add is not supported by the sources: "dialogue" does not correspond with the term "research", which is what the Deseret News article uses; "open" is not the lexicon used by the pope but an interpretation made by several outside observers. Both of these developments and matters should be accurately reflected in this article wherever they appear. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Age record

It should be noted that Francis is the oldest head of the Papal State in 283 years (Leo XIII was not a head of state, he was a prisoner). I think this deserves to be mentioned in the lead. --95.24.68.78 (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Just need a reliable source that verifies this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The first Jesuit Pope

To be added in the incipit 176.200.119.68 (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"openness" to blessing same-sex unions

The article states that the pope expressed what has been described as "openness" to blessing same-sex unions. It would be helpful to state what the pope actually expressed, instead of stating only how it has been described, especially because there is an important difference between the two in wheather the union or the persons are blessed. Since the pope previously has already confirmed that the Church cannot bless sin and that homosexual acts are considered and will continue to be considered gravely sinful, there can be hardly any doubt whether the pope is opened to discussion regarding blessing the disordered unions, which is not possible, or rather blessing the persons who had been involved in such unions but are seeking to be closer to God and live a better life. The pope's own words on the matter can be found here: rc_con_cfaith_risposta-dubia-2023_en.pdf (vatican.va) While it is absolutely true that what the pope expressed has been indeed described by an onslought of media outlets as opennes, even will to blessing same-sex unions, that does not change what the pope actually expressed. If the wikipedia article on the pope contains how his words were falsly described, it should also contain some reference to his actual words and their meaning. Nagyszakall (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Pope Francis Allows Priests to Bless Same-Sex Couples

The New York Times - The Vatican said Monday that Pope Francis had allowed priests to bless same-sex couples, his most definitive step yet to make the Roman Catholic Church more welcoming to L.G.B.T.Q. Catholics and more reflective of his vision of a more pastoral, and less rigid, church. [1]. M.Karelin (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• I think The NYT is a good source, right ?? M.Karelin (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm readding it. StardustToStardust (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  Fox News also describes it as blessing same-sex couples rather than LGBT individuals. In fact, the document wouldn't make sense if it were referring to individuals with same-sex attraction, as that was already permissible within the church.

  It's clear that Francis means same-sex couples can be "blessed" rather than blessing LGBT individuals. The Italian wording of the document is entirely in collective rather than individual terms. Words like "individual" or "person" or them" is never used - "persons" is used twice, "couples" is used 18 times, and "couple" 22 times. Reliable sources overwhelmingly also give the same interpretation.

  The only area of dispute to me is what a "blessing" necessarily implies. The fact that he's allowing same-sex unions be blessed shouldn't be controversial. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@ShirtNShoesPls: You are mistaken with your edit to the article: the union is not blessed. See this official Vatican source: "Although the couple is blessed but not the union". ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

That's the viewpoint of one writer at Vatican News. It doesn't represent the official viewpoint of the Catholic Church or the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources. The document itself is clearly speaking in a collective sense. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@ShirtNShoesPls: No, that's the official stance of the official Catholic Church publishing arm. Also, you have a lack of understanding on the consensus of reliable sources. See Barron's and The Pillar (run by canon lawyers). Additionally, AP correctly refers to this as "blessings for same-sex couples", not their union. It should also be added that Pope Francis did not issue the statement. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The Pillar isn't a credible source. It's a fundamentalist Catholic website that has engaged in the doxxing of LGBT Catholics. The Barron's source says nothing about it only narrowly applying to inviduals. It's also logically nonsensical. LGBT individuals were already allowed to be blessed by Catholic priests.

A single writer at Vatican News (whose positions are not the same as the Catholic Church's positions) isn't an infallible guide. The overwhelming consensus of sources is that it's in referrence to same-sex unions.

However, you are correct in saying that there's a dispute in what the language means. Traditionalists state it's a "God will keep the good parts of the relationship intact while making it so you turn from sin" while progressives see it as a "first step" to affirmation. (I however don't think that debate belongs in the lead.) ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)