This week, hundreds of delegates from around the world began a monthlong meeting as part of Pope Francis’ “Synod on Synodality”—a gathering to discuss the future of the Catholic Church. It could radically change the religion. The group is considering groundbreaking alterations to orthodoxy on same-sex unions and whether or not women can be ordained as priests. The process has changed, too. For the first time, delegates include women.

A synod is a conference for church leaders and lay people to engage in conversation about how to bolster the good of the church. Since the 1960s, delegates from the global church have come together to discuss evolving issues. The current synod is part one of a multi-year process that will culminate in 2024 with Francis’ decisions and includes particularly controversial topics, like celibacy and divorce.

The lead up has been punctuated by conservative concerns about just how liberal this meeting may get. The synod kicks off days after a letter became public in which the pope considered blessing the existence of queer couples and the allowance of female priests.

Pope Francis wrote that while marriage is an “exclusive, stable and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to conceiving children,” pastoral charity is also needed, and may be discretionary. Pastoral prudence, he wrote, “must adequately discern if there are forms of blessing, solicited by one or various persons, that don’t transmit a mistaken concept of marriage.” On female priesthood, the pope asserted that, whereas nobody can publicly contradict the church’s current rules prohibiting women’s ordination, they should study it.

For some, this rhetoric may seem like the bare minimum. But for others, like Americans on the right, it’s scary as hell.

Conservative Catholics across the U.S. have been some of the most vocal globally in pushing against reforms, and fear that the church is changing in a way that doesn’t match scripture or their ideology. One New York City priest, Reverend Gerald Murray, worried publicly that the pope “will authorize things that are not contained in Catholic doctrine or that will contradict it,” like women deacons or blessing gay unions. “We’re not Protestants,” he said.

Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, Archbishop Emeritus of St. Louis, a vocal opponent to Pope Francis, was in the group that sent the pope a letter inquiring how he would be responding to these issues at the summit. “It’s unfortunately very clear,” Burke said on Tuesday, “that the invocation of the Holy Spirit on the part of some has as its aim to push forward an agenda that is more political and human than ecclesiastical and divine.” (Burke was not invited to the meeting at the Vatican.)

Pope Francis’ track record on queer and women’s rights is complicated. He formally allowed women to read from the Bible during Mass, but also came out against women becoming ordained. Speaking about queer people in 2013, the pope famously asked, “If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them?” He has argued that homosexuality should not be treated as a crime in different countries but clarifies that he still thinks it’s a sin. Francis has framed many of these decisions as instances where localities should turn toward scripture and an evolving discernment as it befits their needs as part of his hope of growing the Catholic Church.

Because of this potential divide between local and global doctrine and application, it is possible that American Catholics may not even see these changes, should they be formally supported by the pope but not adopted by local priests.

As Mother Jones previously reported, American catholicism has splintered as some of the devout entrench themselves in wider conservative politics. Right-wing provocateurs like Milo Yiannopoulos and Steve Bannon notably have moved in Catholic circles saying Pope Francis should be curtailed. Yiannopoulos, who touts a traditionalist form of Catholicism, has been telling anyone who will listen to him, to “make the Vatican straight again” and “make America homophobic again.”

The pope himself seems unfazed by the ire of American Catholics. “They got mad,” he told reporters in late August after a squabble. “But move on, move on.”

  • Bdtrngl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Until they start paying tax and stop molesting children all of them can fuck right off.

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      As someone who is not an only atheist but an anti-theist, I have no love for the Catholic Church and either its ancient, middle-age, or present form. However, I’m also a realist. For the Catholic Church to even be publicly willing to discuss such matters (especially things like LGBTQ issues and female ordainment), well, even I’ll admit that something decent may come from this in the end, even if it’s not all what decent society may want (or demand).

      In its history, the Catholic Church has been on of the world’s most renowned institutions for being inflexible in its conservative dogma. Extremely rarely do the even ever discuss openness, especially publicly, to changing doctrine. This is one of those extremely few times. I would be extremely shocked if nothing came from this, especially considering the current pope.

      Certainly, there are many tractors that will hold back the more radical of proposed changes, but now is the time where we will see any serious changes were likely to see for a long time within the Catholic Church. I’m excited to see what manages to get done at this synod.

      • Stovetop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am sure this is a “be careful what you wish for” moment, but part of me is hoping that the American conservative Catholics are insane enough to try appointing their own Trump-aligned antipope and schism from the church, just so that the more rational Catholics in the US can have their literal “Come to Jesus” realization about how far gone the political right has become.

        I firmly believe that there is a scary number of Americans who would get behind such a move. But at this point, I have just about accepted that the political divide in the US will not end peacefully, so if that’s our fate, I’d like to at least have the lines drawn cleanly.

        • gregorum@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re describing every form of Protestantism since Martin Luther.

          C’mon…

          • Stovetop@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            A bit different; protestantism disagrees with the practice of having a centralized church at all, while other schisms in the Catholic church that took place in the past still maintained the church structure. They just appointed antipopes that were more politically aligned with their ideals.

      • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        For the Catholic Church to even be publicly willing to discuss such matters (especially things like LGBTQ issues and female ordainment), well, even I’ll admit that something decent may come from this in the end, even if it’s not all what decent society may want (or demand).

        Nothing will come from this.

        It’s not a “huh, maybe we were doing something wrong, maybe we should change” meeting, it’s a “Oh, the peasants are getting uppity again, quick, say that were graciously considering human rights or something to calm them down” meeting.

        It’s the KKK holding a meeting considering on whether to allow black people to join.

    • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      not just that but literally from this article:

      “marriage is between a man and a woman”

      no it fucking isnt. Source: all the places where you can get married without being a man and a woman.

      they are saying pasta can only have red sauce while i eat a bowl of carbonara in front of them.

      the best one can do now is say “marriage *should go back to being between a man and a woman”, which they won’t because they’re fucking cowards.

      they should own up to their own stupid ass beliefs.

  • Stovetop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yiannopoulos, who touts a traditionalist form of Catholicism, has been telling anyone who will listen to him, to “make the Vatican straight again” and “make America homophobic again.”

    My dude, you are queer. You married a man and were proudly gay until a year ago. You’re only just now faking a successful conversion to the straight life so your new Nazi friends don’t lynch you in town square.

    Go back to Britain and stop making American politics worse than it already is. Or stick around and don’t act surprised when you inevitably get “Night of the Long Knives”-ed.

  • negativeyoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    1 year ago

    So Vatican 3 basically.

    Back in the day mass was done entirely in Latin and the priest didn’t address the congregation. This didn’t change until the '60s. Some sects are still pissed off over it

  • Dkarma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    Raymond Burke is a piece of shit who covered up sexual abuse of children. How he’s still free blows my mind.

    • Art35ian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I still don’t get how Christianity survived evolution.

      Evolution = no Adam and Eve. No Adam and Eve = no Original Sin. No Original Sin = the entire Bible falls apart.

      They must have used some serious white-out tape to work around that one.

        • Art35ian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The story starts with Original Sin. It’s where the Devil, sin, heaven and hell, and retribution and forgiveness all starts.

          If you can’t have Eve biting the apple, you can’t have a Bible, period.

            • Art35ian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Hey man, I’m on your side.

              Sunday School, church, prayer, grace, Youth Group. I did it all, and I call it all horseshit now.

              I’m just saying, once you get past all the introductions, the Bible opener is Original Sin. And once evolution became fact, that scene #1 of the Bible falls on its ass, so everything that follows it has to as well.

      • Zloubida@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not how it works. Genesis is a myth, a story who puts chronologically an existential truth.

        The original sin is original in that it predates us.

        • JesusLikesYourButt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Christians are the only ones that believe in original sin, right? I could never take that idea seriously after actually reading genesis.

          • Zloubida@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you read Genesis as a historical account of real events, you’re right not to take it seriously. But if you read it as a metaphor, it can change your life.

            • JesusLikesYourButt@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I prefer to read the Abrahamic religious books as a legendary/mythological account of history, not outright historical. The people who wrote these books had an agenda to push and by studying it we can get an idea of what their intentions were in wrtiting them down. You can’t fully understand some of the stories in the Bible if you don’t have some understanding of the culture and history and beliefs of the people that wrote them. Context is vital.

              I’d love to hear how you think it would change my life? It’s fun to get different perspectives.

              I’ve always hated the idea of original/inherited sin. It’s such a cruel idea to me.

              • Zloubida@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’ll try to explain what I think (it’s of course my vision and not the Truth), but in advance sorry for my broken English.

                I’ve always hated the idea of original/inherited sin. It’s such a cruel idea to me.

                It depends on what you put behind these words. American Christianity (but it’s of course not the case only there) is obsessed by the question of hell, thus the idea that everybody inherits the condamnation is indeed cruel. But as you said, one should understand the culture and history of the people who wrote Genesis 1 and 2 (two different texts that are in opposition if one takes them literally, by the way, a proof that it’s not how the authors thought them), and to them, the question of the afterlife was if not irrelevant, at least not central. The oldest parts of the Old Testament even do not presuppose an afterlife at all. It comes later, first as the sheol, a place that welcomes everybody, and finally as a bodily resurrection of the just people only. Thus the original sin is not what condemns you to hell.

                Sin is not about hell and heaven. Sin is an existential reality here and now. Etymologically, it’s an archery terms which signifies “to miss the mark”. Sin is the fact that we can’t be what we should be. Our “mark”, a life in communion with God, thus a life free of evil, can’t be not missed. We are not able to attain it, and that’s because of sin. But sin is not our fault, sin is original, it predates us, thus we can’t be accused of sinning. Sin is not a moral question.

                Why does sin exist? @[email protected] is right when they ask if God is responsible of the sin. Genesis does say that God created everything, thus he created, if not the original sin itself, at least the possibility of sin. Why would a good God do that? It’s a mystery, but Genesis offers a part of the answer: because of freedom. God wants us free. God wants us able to refuse him. He loves us, and he wants us to love him too, but because he loves us he wants us to be autonomous. Without the ability to sin, we wouldn’t be autonomous.

                Thus, the doctrine of the original sin is not an accusation of everybody. It’s a freeing doctrine: you’re not responsible for the evil that inhabits you. It’s not your fault. It’s original, inherited. It’s the price of your freedom. You can now walk freed of culpability (if a Church makes you feel more guilty than before, this Church is not teaching the Gospel). And God doesn’t let us alone in that. It’s not in Genesis 1-2 anymore, but the rest of the Bible is pretty clear about the fact that God accompanies us in our road, he suffers when we suffer, he walks with us, and he offers his presence in our lives. He helps us endure, if we make the decision to ask him. He asks the believers to fight against the consequences of evil, making the world a better place. It’s not always the case, of course, but it’s what he calls us to do.

                The doctrine of the original sin changed my life, I do not fell guilty and I’m stronger to change the world.

                Edit : it’s very mature Lemmy to downvote a message you disagree with.

  • Iamdanno@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you can just get together and decide “OK, now rule X has been changed to rule Y”; how is anyone supposed to take any of it seriously? It is literally made up as it suits them.

    • Art35ian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The answer is, they don’t agree and that’s how religion branches off and all these hundreds of denominations come into existence.

      I worked in an Anglican school two years ago and it almost happened in my time there. As more kids were coming through with fluid gender, half the clergy were in support, the other half weren’t, so there was talk about splitting up and creating some kind of Anglicanism 2.0.

      So, you’ve gotta wonder, if this has been going on for 2,000 years how far off its original tracks is religion today? And people still follow it like it’s God’s word? Even if it was God’s word we’ve proper fucked it a few hundred times times to suit our narrative since.

      • angrystego@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not everything is written in the Bible. Modern times bring modern problems and religious people need to decide which solution is in accord with their faith.

    • jantin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Read up (or listen to podcasts) on the earliest history of Judaism. It’s genuinely fascinating history. Lesson learned is that they were making things up to suit circumstance since Yehovah became the big thing and probably longer. What protestants did and what Catholics think about considering doing now it’s just the newest developments in the long line.