this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
271 points (96.2% liked)

World News

38978 readers
2867 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Pope Francis has formally approved allowing priests to bless same-sex couples, with a new document explaining a radical change in Vatican policy by insisting that people seeking God’s love and mercy shouldn’t be subject to “an exhaustive moral analysis” to receive it.

The document from the Vatican’s doctrine office, released Monday, elaborates on a letter Francis sent to two conservative cardinals that was published in October. In that preliminary response, Francis suggested such blessings could be offered under some circumstances if they didn’t confuse the ritual with the sacrament of marriage.

The new document repeats that rationale and elaborates on it, reaffirming that marriage is a lifelong sacrament between a man and a woman. And it stresses that blessings should not be conferred at the same time as a civil union, using set rituals or even with the clothing and gestures that belong in a wedding.

But it says requests for such blessings should not be denied full stop. It offers an extensive definition of the term “blessing” in Scripture to insist that people seeking a transcendent relationship with God and looking for his love and mercy should not be subject to “an exhaustive moral analysis” as a precondition for receiving it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Except married couples get legal benefits that actually matter in reality that same-sex couples don't get. So its not a strawman. It is shit that actually happens to real people.

[–] SSUPII@sopuli.xyz 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You don't get legal beneficts from having a religious marriage. Only for a legal marriage, that is always possible unless your state is a behind hell hole

[–] Izzgo@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Furthermore, it has always been possible to get a religious wedding (certain churches only), even before it could be a legal marriage.

[–] SSUPII@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Entirely depends on where you live. Where I do, that is illegal to the extent that it simply has no value. You just don't show as married to the state, and you will get in a burocracy mess if you try to do ANYTHING as a couple

[–] Izzgo@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The value would be, that church considers you married in the eyes of God, irrelevant of what human laws say. Not that I believe in any such god, but I remember gay people who got married in their Quaker church, and within their spiritual circle they were treated as married like any other married couple. Of course it didn't count for anything in the secular world.

[–] SSUPII@sopuli.xyz 2 points 10 months ago

Of course meant a civil value. Of course in the religion that marriage has been practiced tp it will have its own spiritual one.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (6 children)

Arent these religious ceremonies legally binding? Isn't the catholic church donating to causes to illegalize same-sex marriage? This are serious questions no sass intended tbh

[–] rah@feddit.uk 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Arent these religious ceremonies legally binding?

If you don't know then why are you arguing about it?

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I'm not arguing I'm asking. I say so in my comment. We're on a discussion board, where we discuss things.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

You said, as part of this discussion, before asking your question:

Except married couples get legal benefits that actually matter in reality that same-sex couples don't get. So its not a strawman.

Why did you state that married couples get benefits that same-sex couples don't get if you didn't know what you were saying was true?

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

When it is illegal for same-sex couples to marry that it was one the things they miss out on. Which, according to this article, is still not legally recognized in Vatican City. It seems I do indeed have a point, as it says here their relationship status is not recognized by the Vatican City. Did you see that it said they are not recognized in Vatican City? Legally? Would you agree that it is important that your government legally recognizes your marriage?

[–] rah@feddit.uk 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

When it is illegal for same-sex couples to marry that it was one the things they miss out on.

It seems then that you were comparing married couples with same-sex couples who were not in a legally recognised life partnership, such as a civil partnership in the UK. Which makes no sense. I think it's safe to assume that the vast majority of people one interacts with on Lemmy will live in a jurisdiction where same-sex life partnerships are legally recognised.

Vatican City

is a backward city-state and is no way representative of contemporary Western democracies.

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They are not legally binding. You need a separate civil marriage.

In the US, a religious figure often has a proper certification and can also provide civil marriage (to streamline the process) or you can have it done separately.

In other countries you actually need to have two ceremonies (typically done on the same day).

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Thank you, I have been outside the US but I don't think I have ever seen a wedding in detail in another culture so I was unsure of the legal aspects of these ceremonies.

[–] natecox@programming.dev 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The religious ceremony has no legal bearing at all, which is why in order to get married legally you have to go to the local government and get a marriage certificate. You can have the city ordain your marriage right in the civic center, no religion required.

[–] statue_smudge@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That is true in the US, but there are many counties where religious marriage is legal marriage.

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You mean in theocracies? I don't think they allow gay marriages anyway.

[–] statue_smudge@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I believe Canada allows religious marriage (you don’t have to get a marriage license in that case, it’s not a civil ceremony).

Edit: you can also have a civil marriage ceremony, which is also legally valid

[–] SSUPII@sopuli.xyz 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

At least in Italy, a religious marriage is legally bidining as much as a civil marriage because it is a byproduct of such.

For a civil marriage only, one only needs to show certain documentation, and the only requirement is both to be Italians, be 18 years old or more and both not already civil married (no gender requirements).

A religious marriage is not valid unless a civil marriage is iniciated first, where the rules of the religion of both partecipants are followed and applied in this case. Mixed religions/beliefs are allowed too, but they usually come with extra rules (for example, a marriage between a atheist and a chatolic is possible in a christian church as long as the atheist signs a swear to allow future children from the marriage to receive the chatholic education)

The choice of only a civil marriage or the added religious marriage brings the same rights and duties in the Italian law.

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 1 points 10 months ago

No. There's the civil registry office (translated right?), where you go for the legal marriage. And then there's the marriage party with guest, which can be religious. At least in most of Europe and US, might be different in your country.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

That's going to be dependent on jurisdiction. In e.g. Germany church weddings have no legal meaning whatsoever, that has been the case since 1874 when Prussia wrestled everything regarding civil status from the Church. Long story short everything regarding birth, marriage, and death is done by the Standesamt, a municipal office, they keep all the certificates and notarise any changes (not to be confused with the Einwohnermeldeamt which is also often translated "registry office", but deals with registering your address with the municipality as well as everything passport and ID card related). It's not a strict "signature and rubber stamp only" thing, they're amenable to moderate amounts of ceremony, as well as when it comes to venue.

Back when civil law only knew opposite-sex marriages and registered partnerships Lutheran Churches already offered ceremonies to same-sex couples, same exact thing as a marriage ceremony with same theological meaning (promise before god and the congregation, followed by a blessing), what they couldn't agree on is whether to call it a marriage or a blessing. The conservatives were, bluntly put, worried that some poor angel somewhere would have to re-do all the paperwork. Theologically of course the whole thing is easier in Lutheranism as marriage isn't a sacrament. Remember that Catholics, to this day, don't even divorce people -- best you can get is an annulation, "there's never been a marriage in the first place and everything has been a mistake".

[–] SSUPII@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Also, about the second question.

No, the church isn't doing such donations. Maybe the local one in your country, but the church of the Vatican City has lost all political influence by also being its own country with its own political background. In Italian law, the separation of church and state is clearly defined and becoming even more defined with the slow change in the religion lesson in every school changing their now 1 hour per week dedicated to it from teaching christianity to either history of the religions in the world or debate lesson.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

The churches in my area do donate heavily but they are mostly Mormon. Thank you for the explanation, and everyone else that replied too. All the churches in my area are so heavily involved in politics that they are always decorated in political messaging. So I figured thats how most churches are.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Except married couples get legal benefits that actually matter in reality that same-sex couples don't get.

That's not the case in the UK.

So its not a strawman.

It's probably not the case where you live either.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] rah@feddit.uk -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Dafuq are you talking about? It's not the case in the UK. Quoting directly from the page you linked to:

You can benefit from Marriage Allowance if all the following apply:

you’re married or in a civil partnership

...

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That married couples do get legal benefits in the UK that unmarried couples don't?

[–] rah@feddit.uk -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

You're wrong. As shown by the source you yourself gave.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Mm, no you just missed the point of it, but crack on I guess.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I respect your right to do so

[–] Izzgo@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

One clear legal benefit came up recently for me and my wife. She was in the hospital for several days. As her legal wife I was given certain medical information that would only go to next of kin. Before we got married we were not legal next of kin, and in fact that's the reason we got married.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Smart of you two to give in and marry. I was with my better half for years without the paper. It just got to difficult dealing with all stuff. Immigration, inheritance law, shared banking accounts. People know how to deal with married couples they don't know how to deal with couples that are married in all but name.

This is the woman I love. I don't need some fucking shaman or some government stooge to define or approve or be involved in our relationship.

[–] Izzgo@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

I fully agree with you, don't need anyone else defining my relationship. Neither government nor religion. 38 years ago she first asked me to marry her and I said no, I will never marry. We went back and forth on that issue over the decades, but as we enter old age, it just seemed wise.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

me and my wife

As her legal wife

we got married

You got married? In a religious ceremony in a Christian church? Or you had a civil ceremony and are now in a civil partnership?

[–] Izzgo@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

In the US where I live, a civil ceremony is a legal marriage, and that's what we did, right at the courthouse. Previously we were in a domestic partnership, which required no ceremony just signing the papers, and gave us many of the legal rights of marriage. I'm not a Christian, nor a member of any major religion, so I would not avail myself of that type of religious ceremony anyway.