Talk:Pope Francis

Pope Francis Allows Priests to Bless Same-Sex Couples
The New York Times - The Vatican said Monday that Pope Francis had allowed priests to bless same-sex couples, his most definitive step yet to make the Roman Catholic Church more welcoming to L.G.B.T.Q. Catholics and more reflective of his vision of a more pastoral, and less rigid, church. . M.Karelin (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think The NYT is a good source, right ?? M.Karelin (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm readding it. StardustToStardust (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fox News also describes it as blessing same-sex couples rather than LGBT individuals. In fact, the document wouldn't make sense if it were referring to individuals with same-sex attraction, as that was already permissible within the church.
 * It's clear that Francis means same-sex couples can be "blessed" rather than blessing LGBT individuals. The Italian wording of the document is entirely in collective rather than individual terms. Words like "individual" or "person" or them" is never used - "persons" is used twice, "couples" is used 18 times, and "couple" 22 times. Reliable sources overwhelmingly also give the same interpretation.
 * The only area of dispute to me is what a "blessing" necessarily implies. The fact that he's allowing same-sex unions be blessed shouldn't be controversial. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken with your edit to the article: the union is not blessed. See this official Vatican source: "Although the couple is blessed but not the union". ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's the viewpoint of one writer at Vatican News. It doesn't represent the official viewpoint of the Catholic Church or the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources. The document itself is clearly speaking in a collective sense. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that's the official stance of the official Catholic Church publishing arm. Also, you have a lack of understanding on the consensus of reliable sources. See Barron's and The Pillar (run by canon lawyers). Additionally, AP correctly refers to this as "blessings for same-sex couples", not their union. It should also be added that Pope Francis did not issue the statement. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Pillar isn't a credible source. It's a fundamentalist Catholic website that has engaged in the doxxing of LGBT Catholics. The Barron's source says nothing about it only narrowly applying to inviduals. It's also logically nonsensical. LGBT individuals were already allowed to be blessed by Catholic priests.
 * A single writer at Vatican News (whose positions are not the same as the Catholic Church's positions) isn't an infallible guide. The overwhelming consensus of sources is that it's in referrence to same-sex unions.
 * However, you are correct in saying that there's a dispute in what the language means. Traditionalists state it's a "God will keep the good parts of the relationship intact while making it so you turn from sin" while progressives see it as a "first step" to affirmation. (I however don't think that debate belongs in the lead.) ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "It's a fundamentalist Catholic website"
 * And?, using that logic we could say that NYT and other sources are non-Catholic or secular websites, indeed, every source can be reduced to "a single writer".2800:98:122E:6691:2418:4DDF:B849:D11F (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, can you provide any evidence that they doxxed someone? 2800:98:122E:6691:2418:4DDF:B849:D11F (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You are ignoring the official statements of the Vatican, canon lawyers (The Pillar reporting that a priest responsible for sexual morality rules is violating them is not "doxxing"), reliable sources, the USCCB, and other sources  (Fr. James Martin's quote not withstanding),. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * That wasn't an official statement of the Vatican, the large majority of canon lawyers have intepreted it in a collective sense, and Catholic churches have already started to widely "bless" the unions in this way. LGBT Catholics were already allowed to be blessed. If it was only on an individual level, why does the document always refer to it in a plural sense, and why even release a document about it? The USCCB wording just states that the Church doesn't see it as a same-sex marriage. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Most sources have aligned on using "blessing same-sex couples" over "blessing same-sex unions". Catholic official statements, independent reliable sources, and subject-matter experts (here's another) all agree: this isn't about blessing unions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Bishops throughout the world have begun to widely bless same-sex unions. Who do we believe? A few random canon lawyers? Or how it is being applied? This argument comes across as sophism. No offense. Even First Things applies it in the sense of blessing the union itself. The overwhelming viewpoint is that it applies to the unions: not just the people. The language is always collective. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * An opinion piece by a journalist carries substantially less authoritative weight than a statement published by the Vatican, the commentary of multiple canon lawyers, and the latter reporting of reliable sources. In your words, this is the opinion of one writer. You have failed to demonstrate that it factually applies to unions, even if that interpretation is common. Experts receive deference. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1.) Again, if Catholic archbishops are blessing the unions than a collective sense then the argument is entirely sophist. 2.) The Vatican commentary isn't an official statement. 3.) Even traditionalist sources are predominantly interpreting it to mean in a collective sense. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ShirtNShoesPls, you seem not to see the point here and to try to push a POV.
 * Beside, The Pillar is used as a RS on many WP articles, there is no community decision that this is not a RS. Veverve (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's POV-pushing to say there's a singular interpretation of the document. The liberal Catholic viewpoint needs represented. Francis ally and Jesuit James Martin stated that one should not be fooled into thinking the union themselves aren't blessing. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that there is one interpretation. Also, for what it's worth, the words of Fernández (who wrote the document and is head of the church's doctrinal administration) take precedence on topics related to doctrine over those of a priest with who worked in the papal PR arm. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Who decides that his words take precedence? Fernández was a writer. He wasn't the only writer. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can name another writer and demonstrate a difference of opinion, do so. Otherwise, you have no argument. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The bishops. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The bishops? What which other bishops who wrote Fiducia supplicans, if they exist? ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2023
replace ' ' with ' ' 12.144.191.101 (talk) 08:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Jesus alone is the head of the Church
The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is the head of the Church. Please correct this false statement 2600:6C52:4C00:2893:C14A:425D:1DC4:8D92 (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * While you are technically correct–the best kind of correct–most reliable sources will describe the pope as the head of the Catholic Church (see Britannica). As he is the "Vicar of Christ", he is the functional head of the church. Worth considering an explanatory note, though. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Agree a note or slight edit to the intro line would help. You could say "Jesus Christ is the head of the Catholic Church and the Pope is the head of the visible church on earth" you could also append the linked article which defines Catholic Church to show that the church is a mystical body and not just the buildings or faithful here on earth (for example the Church is made up of the Church Triumphant, Church Suffering, and Church Militant) 2600:6C52:4C00:2893:FBFD:CDFA:17EF:5007 (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll workshop such a note, but I would like to stay away from terminology like "church militant", as few other than apostolic Christians would understand the distinction. If you notice that I've failed to produce such a note by week's end, feel free to reply again and I'll expedite. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! I think you are right. T
 * Thanks so m for doing this and here is an article in case it helps on https://insidethevatican.com/magazine/is-the-pope-really-the-head-of-the-catholic-church/ 2600:6C52:4C00:2893:FBFD:CDFA:17EF:5007 (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Francis is an Honorary Member of the Masonic Rotary Club
Sourced here 95.74.77.154 (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You may not know this, but Novus Ordo Watch is an WP:unreliable source. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting. But as said above it's not reliable. And the Catholic Church, as far as I'm aware prohibits freemasonry. WizardGamer775 (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Pope Francis clarified his stance on same-sex couple blessings
https://www.foxnews.com/media/pope-francis-corrects-60-minutes-church-blessing-same-sex-unions-sacrament.amp 2607:F2C0:EB76:C70:7D10:BD23:EA2D:7989 (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image
Does anyone object using File:Franciscus, 2023.jpg? The colors are better, the image is more recent... the only downside is probably the angle. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, the downside is exactly that, the angle I don't think a more recent photo justifies a much worse picture here, the current photo is fine. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Too many articles about the same person
Wikipedia has so many articles about Pope Francis! I think they could be merged on the principal article. For instance, there is a long article named "Pope Francis and LGBT topics". It could be included in the principal article. 2804:D84:2280:2400:B045:A59D:D997:FF0D (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is standard practice to have multiple articles on people like Pope Francis. Extremely notable and influential people sometimes require multiple articles to have full encyclopedic coverage. A slightly older example of this is the article Joseph Priestley and Dissent. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)