Main Edition
US
FR
April 9, 2024 - 11:55am
It cannot be that surprising to most observers that the Vatican has strongly criticised so-called gender reassignment surgeries in a new teaching document. “Catholic Church opposes gender ideology” should be the ultimately “dog bites man” story.
And yet there will be people to whom the document is a disappointment. In the public mind Pope Francis tends to be regarded as a reformer, an opponent of overly-formal liturgy, and a harsh critic of modern capitalism. He has changed the wording of the Catechism to totally condemn the death penalty, has tried to soften the Church’s rhetoric on sexuality, and is attempting to make the government of the Church more democratic through “synodality”.
This has raised expectations that he is a “liberal” who will formally amend the Church’s longstanding and endlessly criticised doctrines on sexuality, marriage, the sanctity of life, and the human body. But such expectations arise from a confusion of theology and politics. Francis is broadly on the political Left, in economic terms. His experiences of Latin America in the second half of the last century have made him hostile to anything resembling authoritarian nationalism, and he has a deep dislike and suspicion of the Anglo-American free market tradition. He is an anti-imperialist.
But he is also a theologically conservative Catholic, with all that implies. A decade ago, he publicly threatened mafiosi with hellfire, and frequently mentions the devil in his homilies and public reflections. He has condemned abortion in unambiguous and vigorous terms, notably comparing doctors who carry out the procedure to contract killers. Even his much-debated suggestion that some Catholics who have remarried after divorce should be allowed to receive Communion was made in the context of re-affirming core teaching on marriage and the sacraments.
This combination of social conservatism with a Left-leaning view of the economy, criminal justice and international relations is not at all unusual among Christians, and in no way inconsistent. It is commonly found among observant believing Catholics, including many whom I know personally. The Church’s thinking about politics and social relations is undergirded by concepts such as the sinfulness of all humans and the inevitable fallibility of human institutions, the dignity of the individual, the importance of mercy, and the significance of the created body.
The way in which these categories are applied to contemporary issues does not break down neatly along conventional Left-Right lines. For example, the idea of God-given dignity precludes abortion, euthanasia and gender reassignment surgery, but it also provides the intellectual and moral basis for Catholic penal reformers, for the food banks run by almost every parish in the country, and for organisations such as Pax Christi which work for peace and reconciliation. The Christian message challenges, and transcends, every political ideology.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWell I never! A Catholic pope! Are we witnessing a Catholic version of Hamtramck?
He’s not theologically conservative, he’s a Jesuit, giving contradictory answers simply in order to confuse.
I thought it was a Babylon Bee headline at first. Good headline.
It is like a BB headline but sadly it’s untrue, this pope is surely a liberal in every possible way. His so-called conservative sayings are mild at best and are soon enough followed by liberal gibberesh. Is it designed to confuse the laity, keep them guessing about his true intentions?
As a pro-choice atheist, I’m still interested in what the church’s view is on society. I’m pleased to see the acceptance of same-sex relationships while expressing reservations on the trans issue. It’s about time they took a stand on something which is adversely affecting youngsters, women, and gays and lesbians.
Thank you progressive Atheist for your input on Church doctrine. I would like to see more Theologians involved in setting the Narratives for Evolutionary Biology textbooks.
It’s about time for Biologists to get with modernity and embrace Inclusivity.
I often admire the clarity of your comments, but not this one i’m afraid.
Theologians are perfectly entitled to have input into evolutionary biology – and almost certainly do. Whether their input becomes accepted is another matter entirely. Similarly, with CC’s suggestion.
My point was not to insult Atheists. I just find it absurd that an Atheist would assume a Salvation Doctrine that she rejects wholesale, should be molded to fit her values. It assumes that the Church is guided by principles of Hegelian Idealism where the Arc of History bends toward some kind of preconceived notion of secular justice.
I’m not Catholic. At no time, would I ever say “It’s about time” that the Catholic Church took a sociopolitical stance. I don’t know why anybody outside of Catholicism would care about official church policy.
I knew someone once who actually said, boldly, that they think Catholics should drop the whole abortion thing in order to gain more parishioners.
I generally agree with that stance, up to the point where the Church (Catholic or otherwise) seeks to impose its views on others.
I don’t think they try to hide their views. You could, you know, try to read something…
I am a pro-choice atheist too, but while I don’t dispute the right of the Church to have an opinion on things, I personally give that opinion zero weight. Maybe even less than zero weight, as I can see the merit in my opposing something that the Church is in favour of (or vice versa) simply for the sheer joy of opposing the church.
That’s idiotic. You’ve literally just shown that you can’t think for yourself. You simply believe that Church bad, and construct all your beliefs simply to be anti-Church. Pathetic
No, you misunderstand. I consider that the Catholic Church are a bunch of hypocrites on a number of levels, and tend to high levels of smugness. Annoying people like that is something of a hobby of mine. It might not be your thing, but everyone has to have a hobby. I should point out that I like annoying the Green Left for similar reasons.
Hi Martin. It’s a viewpoint I find fascinating. “I consider the Catholic Church are a bunch of hypocrites on a number of levels”. I’m an Anglican, and hear similar things about the Anglican Church. But then people meet Christians – Catholics, Anglicans, and many others – who are serving their community: in a homelessness support centre, in a refugee camp, in palliative care homes, and they suddenly find it hard to say it to those people’s face. It’s so easy to demonise “the Church”, as a faceless entity. The church is just people, though. A whole bunch of fallen people. And as Paul said, since no one can claim to be a good person and we’re all hypocrites, best not to judge. It’s so much better to see the people then get angry at an abstract concept like “the Church”. Peace be with you.
I’d say it to their faces. I’m not saying that nobody who professes Christian belief can do good things, but rather that them doing good things is entirely unconnected with the Church. As to the Anglicans, at least they seem to have forgone the belief that Jesus was the son of God, died on the cross, and rose from the dead. In fact, if the Anglican church was disestablished, I probably wouldn’t have a problem with it.
I think you should try talking to Christians. You’re still talking about “the Church”, but you don’t seem to understand what it is. The “good things” Christians do are inseparable from their faith, and because the Church is just Christians, those people are inseparable from the Church. I realise you’re probably just trying to be edgy, provocative, and clever, but in case you really believe what you say, please do try talking to people.
I know plenty of Christians. My parents were Christians. My father was a bit “lapsed” later in life, but had been a Lay Preacher in his youth, so I guess he must have been a believer. My mother was devout to the end of her life. Notwithstanding that, my clear view is that the Christian Church has been the perpetrator of more evil in this world than any other institution. While I respect the right of people to follow the religion of their choosing, I for my part would lose no sleep if the entire corrupt edifice crumbled to dust.
I suppose I largely agree with the Church on most things except that I don’t accept the theology. But I am glad the pope said what it blooming obvious. You can’t change sex.
“Largelh agreeing with the Church on most things except theology” is like saying you’re an Arsenal fan except when they’re playing football.
Not really. Churches are cultural institutions as much as religious ones. Anyone who doubts that need only look at the Church of England.
Not really. Football teams are cultural institutions as much as sporting ones. Anyone who doubts that need only look at Man U.
Nice use of the metaphor!
Perhaps you can’t “change” it, but you can certainly “redefine” it.
At least the Catholics do actually believe in something, unlike our feeble minded lot in the CofE
Well, it’s true that the CofE seems to have abandoned belief in all that “Jesus was the Son of God, and died on the Cross, but rose from the dead” stuff. Unsurprising really, given how implausible it all is.
The Apostles certainly believed it. They went from being fearful and defeated to boldly proclaiming the Gospel and being prepared to die rather than deny it. Improbable it may have been, which makes it so remarkable.
Well, they were a bunch of hicks from a no-account Roman Province.
Whether Jesus is alive or dead, you do a disservice to the rest of mankind when you dismiss his teachings so flippantly.
I actually think his teachings have value, and were way ahead of their time. It is everything that is said and done in his name by the Church that I have a problem with (like, everything from Saint Peter onwards).
If ever a cult existed, it is the political left, which expects anyone who even remotely leans in that direction to march in lockstep with every aspect of the dogma.
Just wait until it’s enforced.
The approach to treat the delusional psychosis that is gender dysphoria is the most terrible medical scandal since lobotomy. The Church’s voice on this issue is welcome.
Dignitas Infinita needs to be read as a whole, and that is especially true of 4. Some Grave Violations of Human Dignity, paragraphs 33 to 62. If you are concerned about any of these issues, then this is why you ought to be concerned about all of them. And if you are concerned about all of them, then this is where you ought to be. Although perhaps we were spoilt by the last two, this Pope can read as if he is equivocating even when he is not. But there is none of that this time.
Within that, the emphasis on biological sex as existing from conception raises huge questions for many of the staunchest opponents of gender ideology, and with it of surrogacy and of the sex industry. What is biologically male from the point of conception cannot be “part of a woman’s body”. That is as unanswerable as when we point out the incomparable misogyny of the suggestion that something could simultaneously be insentient and be part of a woman’s body. Is it the whole of a woman’s body that is insentient? Or is it only the parts that are directly concerned with reproduction? If cells with Y chromosomes, including those of a p***s, can be part of a woman’s body until birth, then why can they not be so from self-identification onwards?
I told you about Donald Trump and abortion. Of far more interest are those who are moving in Great Britain towards the full decriminalisation that may as well have existed for as long as almost anyone can now remember, and which this Government has already imposed on Northern Ireland. Ask them to define a woman. Ask them whether a man can get pregnant. To the second question, if they said no, then ask them how some cells of a pregnant woman’s body could be male, including the cells of what must presumably be her p***s.
The embryo/foetus is never part of the woman’s body.
It has it’s own unique genetic make-up and would be rejected as foreign if it were to come into direct contact with the mother’s blood. The placenta, along with the amniotic sacs, ensures total separation of the foetal tissues from the mother’s blood system.
No woman ever has a p**is which part of her anatomy.
But does it transcend all political ideologies?
Is it not just another political ideology, masquerading as superior, because it has ‘God’ on it’s side?
“is the pope a catholic”? is a slang terminology quoted to someone who ask you something which is glaringly obvious – hence the headline. Clever.
Adding to that then – what!? are humans more than one- sided and shallow in all demeanor and beliefs! Get out of here!!! What he’s not ‘binary’ in all things?
Throw me a line, I think I’m drowning. 🙂
Yep, it’s right up there with “Does a bear sh*t in the woods?”
I enjoy the mash-up “Does the Pope shit in the woods?”.
(Not until the bear becomes Catholic.)
The author suggests the Catholic Left wants to restricts the freedoms of market capitalism, and instead give government bureaucrats control over the economy, because of the Catholic Left’s theological commitment to the “inevitable fallibility of human institutions”?
Weird, it’s because of the inevitable fallibility of human institutions that I *don’t* trust government bureaucrats to make non-self-interested decisions.
No thank you, I’ll stick with Madisonian governance – assume everyone is looking out for themselves, and create structural checks-and-balances that force those self-interested parties to work for one another to achieve their individual goals.
It’s the political version of Adam Smith’s truism, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
Pope Francis is a reformer by the standards of the Catholic Church. One only has to compare him to his predecessor to realise that. That doesn’t make him a “liberal” though.