196
Pope Leo speaks out against cardinal ordering blessings for gay couples
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2026
196 points (97.1% liked)
World News
55875 readers
1589 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They believe marriage is for the sole purpose of procreation, which is their little loophole. They’re so weird about it that I’m surprised they’ve never pushed fertility tests as a pre requisite before allowing a marriage ceremony.
They don't believe that. They just say that. It'd be crazy if they actually believed it. Any reasonable person knows it's just bad faith rhetoric, not a true belief.
Having been raised in the faith (I’ve walked away for a multitude of reasons) I assure you they do believe it. You’re not even allowed to take contraceptives or have a vasectomy
Didn't they refuse to marry someone because he had his genitals blown off?
If that actually were the belief, sterile people would not be allowed to be married, and people's marriages would be annualled when they become sterile, through age or otherwise. Unless they're asking for these, they do not believe it. They may believe that they believe it, but they don't.
They say those things are god’s will and thus not an issue. They leave the door open for “miracles” to occur.
Then they should be happy with same sex marriages. A miracle might occur with them just as well.
Works for me
Again, I'm reasonably certain they don't actually believe a 90 year old woman is suddenly going to get pregnant, or a woman who doesn't have a uterus anymore, or whatever else. These might be the words they're told to repeat to justify things, but they don't believe them. Not even the most devout would believe that.
They may believe God could technically do this, but then he could also technically do the same for same sex couples. He's omnipotent, according to them, after all. His powers are not limited to only making miracles pregnancies to hetero couples. It's no more outrageous than expecting people physically incapable of becoming pregnant becoming pregnant. If they justify this belief based on miricles, then same sex marriage is equally justified. (This is not their belief. They don't believe the former premise, but this is the conclusion that it'd lead to.)
Infertility is a cause for marriage annulation. So it's controlled, but a posteriori.
Then they should dissolve their marriages once their children move out, having fulfilled its only purpose. Staying married after you’re done having kids is lust, pride, and vanity.
/s
If they truly believe that then why are they all celibate? They are chalk full of pedophiles too. Why I hate any post praising the pope. Fucker also lives like a king. Wonder how many of the popes are pedophiles themselves.
Historically the priesthood/other holy orders was a place to toss the weird people or undesirable heirs. It was a convenient way for the gay uncle to have a respectable job and explain why they didn't have a wife. It was also a way to keep pedo types isolated but productive, at least until resources led to many orders dissolving.
Priests cannot marry. Marriage and the Priesthood (Holy Orders) are the only sacraments that are mutually exclusive.
Eastern Catholic priests can marry, actually. There are married Catholic priests out there right now, and not because they converted in from Anglicanism after they married (though those exist, too), but fully cradle Catholics who were married before their vocation. Somehow this has not exploded the church or whatever. It is inconsistent and ridiculous.
Had never heard of that before, thanks for the info
This is one of those pieces of info I try to slip in whenever possible. I'm a firm believer that celibacy is bad for the mind, body, and soul when it's forced on people. Priests may go into it willingly, but years and years of it with no reprieve does bad things to people's minds. If the church could make one reform that I genuinely believe would be best, it is the celibacy of clergy. Tons of reforms needed, but that one is the one I think needs to happen soonest.
Still stupid it's nowhere in the bible. Makes me believe the priest thing was made for repressed pedophiles.
The actual reason is because the church was protecting its assets from the priests. Back then, priests were very powerful members of local government and controlled a large percentage of the wealth in an area. If they could get married and had kids, their kids would inherit the wealth they accumulated instead of that wealth going to the church.
marriage is a union between man and woman, as per the Bible
Bats are birds, as per the Bible. Donkeys talk, as per the Bible. Slave owning is cool as long as you don’t beat them to death, as per the Bible.
There’s plenty of stuff in the Bible that’s utter garbage.
verses please
In order: Leviticus 11:19
2 Peter 2:16 & Numbers 22:28
Exodus 21:20-21
Leviticus 11:19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe, and the bat.
2 Peter 2:16 but he was rebuked for his own disobedience. A speechless donkey spoke with a man’s voice and stopped the madness of the prophet.
This is a miracle, not a statement that donkeys speak (literally SPEECHLESS DONKEY)
Numbers 22:28 The LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?”
Again, A MIRACLE
Exodus 20:20 Moses said to the people, “Don’t be afraid, for God has come to test you, and that his fear may be before you, that you won’t sin.”
The entire Bible should clearly be disregarded over the whole bird thing. Unless of courses you are seriously telling me that the ancient hebrews didn't use our western classification systems for animals, but that would just be ludicrous.
OOPS
Exodus 21:20 “If a man strikes his servant or his maid with a rod, and he dies under his hand, the man shall surely be punished.
Exodus 21:21 Notwithstanding, if his servant gets up after a day or two, he shall not be punished, for the servant is his property.
if the servant is "beat to death", the man will be punished
and as Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament, it mostly doesnt apply to us anymore
Bats don't belong on that list.
As for talking donkeys, you can't bring obvious fiction or superstition into the real world by proclaiming "MIRACLE". That's now how reality works.
And "hey the slave didn't die so by all means carry on owning another human being as property" is not the moral flex you think it is.
You haven't proven the bible is accurate or moral. You've only proven that you are brainwashed by your religion into justifying atrocities and need to work on bettering yourself.
Finally, why are you explaining your holy book? A book that supposedly contains the infallible word of a god should not need mere mortals to explain it. God should have hired a holy ghost writer.
That's literally what a miracle is. You're using circular reasoning here. "Miracles that defy natural explanation did not happen because they defy natural explanation, and nothing can defy natural explanation because we have never seen it happen, therefore miracles cannot and did not happen"
You are typing the words yourself and not getting it. That is definitely some sort of talent.
If there is a claim that something supernatural happened, it better have rock solid evidence to support it. Calling something a miracle because you want it to be true does not make it true. Proving it does. And the only proof of any "miracle" in the bible is - guess what? - cited using the bible. That's what circular reasoning is.
If you make a claim with no objective, testable, flasifiable proof, all you have is a claim. And until you provide robust proof, I will dismiss your claim.
Actually, no. It's not. If I was saying "This miracle happened which is why the Bible is true, the proof it happened is because the Bible says so and it did because it's true" then yes, that would be circular reasoning.
To develop this further because I enjoy infodumping on my special interests, you can divide the Bible into two natures: theological and historical. You start with the historical It is worth mentioning that the Bible is a collection of human writings, which we have divided into 66. (Some were written as the same work but were divided up, like Luke and Acts or the Penteuch, but that's another topic)
So, my thought process is simple. I believe that parts of the New Testament was written first-hand by people who knew Jesus of Nazareth. The pattern of the writings show whoever wrote it was historically familiar with their surroundings. It was generally undisputed who wrote these at the time. They line up enough to be giving a consistent narrative, but not enough to be copying each other in the case of John vs the Synoptics (The synoptics did borrow from each other quite a bit). This is the crux of the matter- Is the New Testament reliable? If you put it under scrutiny and come to the conclusion simply that it is written by people who knew Jesus of Nazareth and that they genuinely believed in what they were saying (considering they got absolutely destroyed by the romans for this belief and didn't stand to benefit as well), then what follows is that Jesus literally rose from the dead, must have really been God and whatever He and the Holy Spirit taught is true. Then, what follows is that whatever Jesus taught is in fact true, so eg, we should love our neighbours. Then since He quoted the Old Testament and also appointed disciples and spoke of the Holy Spirit, it's worth concluding that these writings are also true.
So if the Historical nature of the Bible is true, then Jesus' divinity is true. If Jesus' divinity is true, then the theological nature is true. But the Bible cannot be used to prove the Bible. When I was younger, my skeptical mind was disappointed by a tract proposing the question "Is the Bible True" ans concluding 'yes' because a bible verse says it is. Sure, St Paul who was witnessed receiving a vision of Jesus and being blinded can attest that He is writing with the Holy Spirit as He has the credentials, and Jesus can attest the Holy Spirit was in the Old Testament because He is God and thus has the credentials, but it cannot be used to ascertain whether or not the Bible is historically true.
With this standard, good luck trying to prove that most of history happened.
Another issue with this standard- Miracles are miraculous because they aren't really testable - if holding a flame up to a stick of dry wood causes it to catch fire, that's not a miracle, that's just considered science. Your standard is deliberately designed in such a way so that you'd never believe a miracle.
Direct Hebrew translation.
It wasnt listing birds nor fowls it was telling you that you shall not eat fowls NOR those things
There are a bunch of modern documented miracles, the Lord works in mysterious ways
As I said, most of that does not apply to us anymore as Christ fulfilled it
Define "accurate" or "moral"
Infallible ≠ Simple
Bonus 6. I'm tired of you.
Weak bait
not bait nor weak