A key criticism of Pope Francis’s approach to gay issues is that his rhetorical emphasis on inclusion, dignity, and pastoral care created a misleading impression of change, while in reality, the Church’s official teachings on homosexuality remain unchanged—and remain a powerful weapon in the hands of far-right Catholic activists like Robert P. George, who actively push for legal and social discrimination against gay people.
Francis’s words about welcoming gay people—"Who am I to judge?"—suggested a break from the past, but his refusal to amend the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which still describes homosexual acts as “intrinsically disordered” and of “great depravity,” left those teachings intact as a justification for discrimination. While Francis promoted pastoral outreach, his failure to correct the Catechism’s language allows anti-gay Catholics to continue citing Church doctrine as moral cover for bigotry.
Figures like Robert P. George exploit this doctrinal ambiguity. While Francis preached mercy, George and his ideological allies—including activists at organizations like the National Organization for Marriage and the Ethics and Public Policy Center—argue that Catholic doctrine obligates opposition to gay rights. They lobby against same-sex marriage, support “religious freedom” exemptions that enable discrimination (as does , and oppose non-discrimination protections for gay people. Anti-gay Catholics and Protestants alike secured a victory in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023), where the Supreme Court carved out an exception to public accommodation laws, allowing businesses to deny services to gay people based on religious beliefs under certain circumstances.
Because the Catechism remains unchanged, Francis’s pastoral language served as a rhetorical buffer—offering a softer public face of the Church while still providing theological ammunition to those who want to restrict gay rights. The result is a double game: Francis appeared progressive, but he refused to challenge the very doctrinal framework that justifies anti-LGB discrimination. This strategic ambiguity lets the Church appear compassionate while allowing its most reactionary elements to continue their crusade against gay equality.
As a fallen-away Catholic who remains unwilling to leave the more progressive Episcopal Church I've attended for years now, I agree with you (my departure was largely due to the Catholic Church's stance on gay people and the inferior roles it accords to women). But I do also agree with the larger point of this column, that Francis was a good man. On this and other issues, he had to walk a fine line. I found this quote about another good man who had to walk a fine line: "From a genuine abolition point of view, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent, but measuring him by the sentiment of his country--a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to discuss--he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined." That is from Frederick Douglass in 1876. What will the Catholic Church look like 150 years from now? I think there is still hope that the reactionary elements will not win.
Someone said, "We used to listen to politicians and laugh at comedians, and today we listen to comedians and laugh at politicians," regarding populist politics since 2015.
I have a similar experience as an atheist regarding the Pope. It's not about achieving a 100% agreement rate. Regarding opinions on refugees, welfare, and climate, the Pope turned out better than many atheists, including persons as Trump who are Christian in name only.
A key criticism of Pope Francis’s approach to gay issues is that his rhetorical emphasis on inclusion, dignity, and pastoral care created a misleading impression of change, while in reality, the Church’s official teachings on homosexuality remain unchanged—and remain a powerful weapon in the hands of far-right Catholic activists like Robert P. George, who actively push for legal and social discrimination against gay people.
Francis’s words about welcoming gay people—"Who am I to judge?"—suggested a break from the past, but his refusal to amend the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which still describes homosexual acts as “intrinsically disordered” and of “great depravity,” left those teachings intact as a justification for discrimination. While Francis promoted pastoral outreach, his failure to correct the Catechism’s language allows anti-gay Catholics to continue citing Church doctrine as moral cover for bigotry.
Figures like Robert P. George exploit this doctrinal ambiguity. While Francis preached mercy, George and his ideological allies—including activists at organizations like the National Organization for Marriage and the Ethics and Public Policy Center—argue that Catholic doctrine obligates opposition to gay rights. They lobby against same-sex marriage, support “religious freedom” exemptions that enable discrimination (as does , and oppose non-discrimination protections for gay people. Anti-gay Catholics and Protestants alike secured a victory in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023), where the Supreme Court carved out an exception to public accommodation laws, allowing businesses to deny services to gay people based on religious beliefs under certain circumstances.
Because the Catechism remains unchanged, Francis’s pastoral language served as a rhetorical buffer—offering a softer public face of the Church while still providing theological ammunition to those who want to restrict gay rights. The result is a double game: Francis appeared progressive, but he refused to challenge the very doctrinal framework that justifies anti-LGB discrimination. This strategic ambiguity lets the Church appear compassionate while allowing its most reactionary elements to continue their crusade against gay equality.
As a fallen-away Catholic who remains unwilling to leave the more progressive Episcopal Church I've attended for years now, I agree with you (my departure was largely due to the Catholic Church's stance on gay people and the inferior roles it accords to women). But I do also agree with the larger point of this column, that Francis was a good man. On this and other issues, he had to walk a fine line. I found this quote about another good man who had to walk a fine line: "From a genuine abolition point of view, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent, but measuring him by the sentiment of his country--a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to discuss--he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined." That is from Frederick Douglass in 1876. What will the Catholic Church look like 150 years from now? I think there is still hope that the reactionary elements will not win.
Someone said, "We used to listen to politicians and laugh at comedians, and today we listen to comedians and laugh at politicians," regarding populist politics since 2015.
I have a similar experience as an atheist regarding the Pope. It's not about achieving a 100% agreement rate. Regarding opinions on refugees, welfare, and climate, the Pope turned out better than many atheists, including persons as Trump who are Christian in name only.
Rest in Power, together as with Lemmy and others.
Rest in Power