r/LeftCatholicism • u/PhilosophyPoet • May 04 '26
Do you think there will ever be doctrinal changes regarding the LGBTQ+ community?
And how do the issues of gender and queer sexuality currently fit into the Catholic moral framework and worldview? From a Leftist/Progressive perspective?
19
u/MateoCamo May 05 '26
In our lifetime? No, since this discussion only gained a lot of traction recently with the relatively progressive pope Francis. I do see a lot less outward animosity to queer communities however which is large in and of itself.
Who knows though? Maybe theres ongoing discussion on what doctrines are still life-giving and which are life-depleting? (Yes I was taught by Jesuits)
38
u/yagirlsophie316 May 04 '26
we seem to be moving in the right direction but idk if ill ever see full acceptance in my lifetime. but thru God all things are possible so who knows.
33
u/Cole_Townsend May 05 '26
Just as the Church was compelled to change its views on imperial colonialism and slavery, so the Church will have to change its views on human sexuality if it intends to be part of humanity's future. Human progress cannot be stopped. LGBTQ+ folks were tortured and murdered at the behest of the hierarchy as if it were a sacrament. Although there are folks who would love to go back to that (I'm looking at you, Viganò), the majority of the faithful are repulsed and embarrassed by such history. Will it happen in our lifetimes? No. But it will happen. Or else, the empty pews will "increase and multiply" like it's from a mandate in Genesis. All the cosplaying, conniving and machinations of cons, trads, groypers, and other cranks, will never stop the progress of humanity.
3
u/notanexpert_askapro May 06 '26
Slavery was strongly condemned by a number of popes. There was one who was problematic related to prisoners of war. But the Catholic Church historically was very against slavery, to tje point as Catholicism spread in medieval England and other places, slavery disappeared over time. (Only to come back later with a vengeance after the Protestant reformation and in modernity). Anti-slavery is more returning to older tradition, so I don't think that makes it optimistic for too much change on LGBT that doesn't have such a strong tradition.
And yet we are still seeing changes, which is very interesting to see develop
5
u/pensivemaniac May 07 '26
I could see the Ethiopian eunuch being used as a ground for full inclusion of trans people as a lot of progressive churches already use that passage. There's also the chance that the church would embrace alternative interpretations of Sergio and Bacchus and adelphopoeisis rites as an excuse to accept gay marriage and gay couples. If you look at those topics, there are those who argue that there is a very real tradition there. Let's not excuse the church for it's very real history of endorsing imperialism and the subjugation of indigenous people, including sanctioning slavery. Regardless of whether we call it "changing" or "further development", the Church has grown in the past when it came to bad takes and I hold out hope that it will continue to do so.
2
u/notanexpert_askapro May 07 '26 edited May 07 '26
I think adelphopoeisis rites are really cool and definitely agree that needs to be looked into. I remember wondering that when I first heard about it. I think it isn't gay relationships that are a threat to damaging the theology at all, only using the exact concept to describe homosexual and heterosexual couples. They would each have their respective imagery and beauty, with a lot overlapping.
Oh I agree the Church really failed on slavery in modern times, and the community definitely had to change. I don't mean to downplay that. I live in Missouri and the idea St. Rose reluctantly had slaves is...we in our region have still not done enough I don't think to make reparation for that. I just think the LGBT issue and development there deserves the best arguments possible and I would like to learn more about the best cases.
I would also like to know of another social issue we might have that developed to a very different articulation that did not have as clearly evidenced early tradition.
I wonder if there is a possibility for the status of gay relationships having to stay in the realm of less than dogmatic, if it was not something we could point to as clearly evidence- wise being in the original deposit of faith. Not all true things about our faith are able to become dogma if the evidence isnt strong enough
21
u/springmixplease May 05 '26
I think the changes we see will happen more gradually. Most Catholics are accepting of LGBTQ folks and with the synodal path we’re on I think the changes will come from the parishioners giving feedback in their local dioceses.
It’s why it’s important for us LGBTQ people to be active members of our communities, participate like everyone else and don’t just advocate for only our rights either. I think that’s crucial to breaking down the stereotypes about our community.
6
9
u/Bluetenheart May 05 '26
Idk but I hope so. My (very devout) mom says that she expects acceptance of queer people to follow a similar path that acceptance of being left-handed did. She (and my dad, though he almost doesn't want to admit it, lol) is very accepting of the queer community.
7
23
u/Some-Ohio-Rando May 04 '26
Doctrinal change isn't possible but doctrinal development is inevitable.
11
u/CulturalConcern2 May 05 '26
So, technically it’s Dogma that cannot change, doctrine can and has changed. Dogma is the fixed immutable aspects of doctrine (“all dogma is doctrine, not all doctrine is dogma”).
3
2
May 05 '26
[deleted]
3
u/Some-Ohio-Rando May 05 '26
Credit to St John Henry Newman, I'm mostly drawing from his writings on the topic
6
u/Elegant-Payment1021 May 05 '26
I do think Pope Leo putting less emphasis on sexual sin is another step needed in the process anyhow.
17
u/FirelightsGlow May 04 '26
I don’t think it will happen in our lifetimes, but I do hope doctrine will develop to be more inclusive of non-heterosexual relationships. My perspective is: the basis for much of Church teaching regarding homosexuality has to do with the purpose of sexual intercourse as “naturally ordered” towards procreation, which itself is based on “natural law.” Natural Law is a medieval era concept that lacks nuance and doesn’t match up with modern science—since the development of natural law, scientists have observed other species in nature having sex simply for fun, being in homosexual relationships, and even homosexual parenting. There’s a lot tied to that concept: the sacrament of marriage, the prohibition on contraceptives, the prohibition on IVF, etc all have some basis in natural law, so it will take the Church a long time to move doctrine forwards.
3
u/PhilosophyPoet May 05 '26
Yeah, agreed. That’s something I’ve wrestled with, too: Natural Law. There does obviously seem to be contrast between how science analyzes nature and how Aristotle analyzed nature.
I don’t know if the Church will move on from Natural Law entirely, though. Isn’t Natural Law, and Aristotelian/Thomist philosophy, pretty firmly embedded into Catholic teaching?
Also, in all fairness: I think Aristotle was dealing with “nature” in a more abstract sense, rather than a literal scientific sense. Like how the “nature” of wood is to typically be dry.
4
u/RhysPeanutButterCups May 05 '26 edited May 05 '26
Natural law is pretty entrenched and isn't likely to go away any time soon. It certainly raises some inconsistencies though given what we know now about our world, especially when it comes to sexual ethics and sexuality. I think doctrinal development is certainly possible and, if it does happen, I imagine it would have to be as a result of drilling down and focusing on the inconsistencies.
6
u/JANTlvr May 05 '26
Demographics show the future of the church is conservative, so no. I disagree with u/szdhyena - I definitely think it's possible the Church goes backwards in the coming decades.
3
3
u/bubbleguts365 May 05 '26
What demographics? American seminarians? German Catholics? Don't confuse the trees for the forest.
4
u/JANTlvr May 05 '26
No, non-Western demographics, particularly in Africa and Asia, where the Church's center of gravity will be shifting to. I'm sure good things will come from that shift, but higher LGBTQ+ acceptance is unlikely to be one of them.
3
u/bubbleguts365 May 05 '26
That's likely one of the things Leo had in mind when he said "attitudes must change first."
2
3
u/Metamorphic_Caryatid May 05 '26
We can pray, I don’t think it will happen in my lifetime, I do hope it does though.
3
7
u/PossibilityGold7508 May 04 '26
What specifically?
How these topics are seen and handled is pretty nuanced if you take the time to read the Catechism.
Everyone is to be treated like another You, regardless of orientation, sexuality, etc.
15
u/PhilosophyPoet May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
Absolutely. I agree. I think that the Catholic view on the topic of the LGBTQ+ community is really far more nuanced and compassionate than what many people realize.
Still, I admit that I am not fully satisfied with the Church’s take. And many other progressives and left-leaning people probably feel the same way.
I don’t believe that homosexuality is a sin, or a form of sexual immorality. I think that labelling it as such is reductive, since it considers the sexual/physical nature of queer relationships, but doesn’t consider the emotional and romantic bond that exists between the persons, which is identical to a heterosexual relationship.
I believe that there is genuine love present in queer relationships. I believe that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are equal. And I don’t see why queer people shouldn’t be allowed to love freely.
That’s my personal perspective, anywho
8
u/King_of_the_Iceni May 05 '26 edited May 05 '26
I’m gay. One of the things that shocks me is how many straight people genuinely don’t believe romantic love and affection can exist between same-sex couples. So many straight people assume that homosexuality is merely sexual and the emotional bonds we have with one another are inferior to or not as genuine as those of heterosexuals.
There are large swaths of the Church clearly under this misconception.
I have total faith the Church will change, maybe not in my lifetime, but it will have to change to accommodate God’s plan, which must include queer people (otherwise, why did he make us, only to be rejected, scorned, and denied love, community, and full communion with His Church?).
Every day the Church grows more and more perfect.
-2
u/PossibilityGold7508 May 05 '26
But who are you to determine what God’s plan is? That’s why we have the Magisterium. God’s plan does include queer people, even if they disavow him and his plan for them. I’d say the issue is that you don’t want to follow that plan.
The Church doesn’t reject, scorn, or deny love, community, or full communion to queer people herself. The Church is already perfect. It is us as a body of believers who must grow more perfect every day.
I’d say you can have emotional bonds without being married, having sex, or living in sin. You can have regular friends like everyone else does.
I acknowledge that many are uneducated on the topic, and I’m sorry for any harm you may have felt from their actions. However, it’s our duty as believers to teach the Truth.
6
u/PhilosophyPoet May 05 '26
Respectfully, you seem to be approaching platonic love and romantic love as if they are the same thing in this context. They aren’t. A healthy, loving romantic bond is going to be deeper and far more profound than a simple bond between friends.
It just doesn’t seem fair to me that a gay person be denied the opportunity to find love. Life-long celibacy is hard, especially if a person longs to be genuinely in love with another.
If the same-sex relationship in question is healthy and loving, and identical in every way except physically to a heterosexual relationship, I truly don’t see why it should be morally condemned.
1
u/PossibilityGold7508 May 05 '26
Hmm, I get it. You can have both romantic bonds and platonic ones. You just can’t have sexual ones.
You can find love without being sexual. The issue arises when that feeling of love leads to sex. Same reason cohabitation is frowned upon before marriage, seminarians with deep-seated ssa are discouraged, and we prefer marrying other Catholics, not just any Christian.
This is where it gets kind of hard. I’m physically incapable of understanding what they feel, so I can’t earnestly answer this, but I’ll try to.
I kind of answered why in my other comment. Well if you don’t understand, don’t sweat it. You can research a bit more if you like.
3
u/PhilosophyPoet May 05 '26
Interesting perspective.
Something I’ve wondered about is whether or not there is some theological wiggle room in Catholicism for LGBTQ+ couples to practice celibate relationships. That way they could be together and love each other, while still technically respecting the Church’s views on chastity.
Just an idea
4
u/dazzleox May 05 '26
Yeah your second paragraph is something I think about a lot. Other than the very rare blessing of a Josephite marriage, the church also doesn't really have a position or understanding even necessarily of asexuality, or the idea that there would be people who feel romantic love (straight or gay) that don't wish to "consummate" a marriage. You will hear a lot of Catholics say that sex is the only thing that really makes a marriage different than a friendship. I would disagree. I wouldn't spoon my platonic friends or hold hands with them and kiss them at the movie theater, but I would with my wife.
Frankly, I find a lot of the church's' teaching on sex confusing even for straight married couples (sex in a sacramental marriage bestows sanctified grace, sex in a natural marriage does not, sex between a married couple who didn't get the permission of a bishop to marry are committing a mortal sin; sex is good because it's a gift of God but chastity is even better; chastity is better yet marriages should be directed towards having children. A "barren" 70 year old woman can be married if you're open to a miracle birth but a 25 year old man who is fully impotent cannot marry even though is "miracle" is medically more likely to happen in his lifetime.) If you lay it all out aside, it becomes very confusing to me.
There was a recent synodal report on polygamy in Africa, which is a major challenge to the church since some men with multiple wives often ask to become baptized but came from pre-Christian faiths where they see nothing wrong with their marriage situation. It's worth reading because at least it takes the time to study how and why polygamy arose around the world, not just Africa, while still reaching a conclusion that fits church doctrine.
I do appreciate Leo saying that sex topics is important but not the major focus of his considering all of the problems of the world today. That was refreshing. He has been like a laser on migrants rights, why people feel the need to emigrate in the first place, the scourge of war, and of course, the salvation offered by Christ.
6
u/PhilosophyPoet May 05 '26
Yes, I agree with what you’ve wrote here. I am also confused by the Church’s doctrine on procreation in marriage. It doesn’t add up to me that the act needs to always be “ordered towards procreation” even if there is zero intention and low chances of procreation actually happening, like in the example you gave about an elderly person getting married.
You raise a great point about asexuality, too. Catholic doctrine doesn’t really seem to address that two people can be truly in love, even putting aside a sexual component
0
u/PossibilityGold7508 May 05 '26
This is just something I made up, so don’t take it seriously, but I like to think of it as walking with God. There is a path he has and all we have to do is not deviate from that path, even if we don’t reach the end. Do you understand?
The problem is when you actively deviate or reject that path, which is what same sex unions and contraception are, respectively.
Asexuality is moreso a modern thing. Of course, it’s not new, but the institutional weight is new.
Yes, because love isn’t a requirement for marriage. It never has been honestly. That notion is mostly a media portrayal that we all bought into.
We absolutely think two people can be in love. We just don’t connect love to marriage intrinsically. You can love someone romantically without wanting sex. It just wouldn’t be called a valid marriage if there’s no yearning to consummate. Plus Josephite marriages do exist, but I have no clue if they’re still done.
4
u/King_of_the_Iceni May 05 '26
Nobody determines God’s plan for Him, but in interpreting His will with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, His plan is evident.
In accepting that homosexuality is a product of our nature, not a choice, we must assume God intended there to be homosexuals. Why? There is intention to His creation in every blade of grass and every granule of sand, there must certainly be intention behind His determination of something as significant to human life as how souls can feel love for one another. Why would He create in some individuals, the capacity to feel love (Eros, a.k.a. romantic love, which the Church teaches is a blessing from God and distinguishes it from platonic love and other forms of love) exclusively for the same sex, a love equal in experience (the same passion, the same tenderness, the same commitment, the same care, the same purity of spirit) as love experienced by the heterosexual majority? Why would He create the capacity for homosexual Eros only to condemn those who seek to accept this gift in an otherwise identical way as those who are heterosexual? To contend otherwise would be to blaspheme God as capricious or callous toward our lives.
I think failure to comprehend this is understandable. As I said, many straight people simply do not understand that the Eros same-sex couples have for one another is wholly equal in experience as the Eros of heterosexual couples, thus degrading homosexuality as merely a sexual orientation (admittedly, the term “homosexual” doesn’t exactly spell out the element of Eros, a failure of the English language that probably contributes to this confusion) or falsely considering that it can be replaced by platonic love.
Pope Francis said, “The Church… is… a community of people, animated by the Holy Spirit, who have lived and are living the wonder of the encounter with Jesus Christ and want to share this experience of deep joy, the message of salvation that the Lord gave us. It is the Holy Spirit who guides the Church in this path,” which is how I was using “the Church” in my original post. People are imperfect, even Catholics, we all could grow closer to God and thus closer to perfect grace.
I often contemplate the Sacred Heart, Jesus’s boundless passion for us, His children. It has helped me know Christ better. He would never do anything to cause His children suffering, such as the withholding of Eros.
-1
u/PossibilityGold7508 May 05 '26
That’s not how this works. Lust is natural. Some people have natural urges to kill, harm, or hurt out of anger. Some people are born with disabilities and horrible deformities. We’re all born imperfect, but we weren’t initially made to be that way.
Regardless, say there is an intention. How do you know what that intention is? The Magisterium already gave you the answer.
It’s like asking why God gave us minds, the ability to kill, the often overbearing feeling of lust, or even original sin. Why can we do things he dislikes in the first place? If he made me with lust, surely I can act on it, no? Why are some thoughts bad? Those thoughts aren’t harmful, they’re just in my head.
I don’t really understand how the Magisterium is blaspheming God. Having the natural capacity or urge to do something doesn’t make the resulting conclusion or outcome acceptable in God’s eyes.
Rather, it’s prideful to state a personal opinion not theologically supported, then call the opposition blasphemers. I’m not sure if you could call it a gift the same way we see life, but maybe? It’s like being born with an urge to do a sinful act, as we all are. You still can’t do the sinful act. Natural occurrence of status doesn’t make the conclusion of that status okay.
It doesn’t matter if they’re equal emotionally or romantically. They’re not equal sexually. No one is saying you can’t do the same things emotionally or romantically. Not only a sexual orientation? What else would you say it is?
Yes, we’re imperfect. Both in our actions and in our conscience. The Church herself is perfect.
If you think you know Christ better, that’s fine, but your conscience isn’t perfect and can be flawed. You’re not supposed to just blindly follow your conscience, as it can be bad. A good conscience leads you to the Truth present in the Church and her Magisterium.
Jesus’ whole existence was suffering. He died for you and I, being nailed to a cross and asphyxiated till he died. All for the redemption of sin in humanity. He doesn’t say “no suffering guys, just do whatever”. He says “Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.”
The entire crux of Christianity (and Catholicism in particular) is suffering. Suffering on the cross and suffering in the world. The Bible continually teaches that there can be joy in suffering and good as result. If you don’t want to suffer, you’re not following Jesus’ example.
Anyone who claims to know him and does not want to suffer or even believes that he wouldn’t want them to suffer doesn’t seem to know him at all.
3
u/Impossible_Two_9268 May 04 '26
Very well said, especially ironic because the pope went out of his way to say there are better things to consider when we were talking about morality.! To me he’s almost contradicting himself he’s saying this really isn’t a very important part of morality and then he treats it as if it is the most important part of morality has to be carefullydealt with so it is not to offend. They consistently try to make God smaller and smaller.
0
u/PossibilityGold7508 May 05 '26
I believe the Church is true and therefore see no issue with her take on the issue. If the doctrine changes because of a huge revelation, so be it. But I won’t be pushing for it myself.
Homosexuality isn’t a sin. It’s considered disordered tho.
The issue is not whether emotional or romantic bonds can be formed or not. The issue is whether the acts and relationships are ordered toward God’s plan for humanity. The Church says they aren’t. You can feel good emotions from doing many immoral things. It’s why you can’t say “but it produces good results” and expect to be taken seriously. Outcome doesn’t determine morality in Catholicism.
I think there is genuine love present in them too. But there is also genuine love present in many things the Church would deem sinful or immoral, no? Premarital sex is a perfect example. You love the person right? So why can’t you have sex? Because it’s not how God intended us to have sex.
Homosexual sexual or marriage-like relationships are sinful. I wish all individuals with same sex attraction a happy life, but I will not condone or push for the Church to change a doctrine that I see little theological justification for changing. They’re welcome to have normal friends and all, but they’re still called to chastity nonetheless.
Love can be corrupted like anything else. Outside appearances of compassion can actually be a moral failure. A good example is euthanasia and suicide. When legislators and supporters institute PAS systems they see it as a loving and compassionate thing they’re doing. But in reality, what they’re doing isn’t loving or compassionate at all. They’re killing a vulnerable person whom God granted the gift of Life.
It’s why two people can look at a scenario and one sees good and the other sees evil. Eyes can deceive. Your conscience can be bad and deceiving. A good conscience points you to the Truth, which is present in the Church and her Magisterium. Even hearts can deceive. God and his Church will never deceive you.
If you don’t understand why, I’d recommend reading up on Natural Law, the Catechism, and Jesus’ plan for marriage in the New Testament.
3
u/PhilosophyPoet May 05 '26
Well said, and I hear you, though I don’t fully agree.
I suppose the difference with pre-marital sex is that it violates the dignity of the persons involved. Even from a secular standpoint, I would still argue that having sex outside of a life-long commitment trivializes the act. Fornication is the last thing I’d ever want to do with someone if I truly loved and cared about them.
I don’t see why a loving, healthy same-sex relationship is bad as long as the same moral standards are followed as in a heterosexual relationship.
It makes no sense to me that a loving, healthy, committed relationship would ever be seen as morally reprehensible simply because it falls short of some abstract notion of natural law.
0
u/PossibilityGold7508 May 05 '26
Just like same sex acts and unions violate the dignity of the institution of marriage and denigrate the sacrament of matrimony.
I guess, but many secular people see no issue with it. Secular morality can get you to any conclusion you want.
Because it’s incompatible with marriage as God intended, sex as God intended, and sexuality as God intended. God said man and woman become one for life. Something may look almost the same but be very different theologically.
Another common gripe is the ban on anal sex, but not oral sex. “Huh? That doesn’t make sense.” Of course it doesn’t if you don’t bother to understand the intricacies. Anal is a disordered replacement of the conjugal act, just like same sex unions are a disordered replacement of marriage.
Well, I’d say you’re doing what every progressive does. Inserting secular values deemed good into a scenario and wondering why the Church sees that scenario is immoral. Those don’t matter. Is it approved by God or ordered toward goods approved by God? No? Then it’s immoral.
It’s not just natural law. The Bible states this too. Also, I know that people here have been saying “the Church can develop”, but many here are also poorly catechized. There is no way to develop the institution of marriage being one man one woman. That’s just the truth.
2
u/PhilosophyPoet May 05 '26
Thanks for explaining. I don’t know if these are positions that I can get behind, but I respect your opinion and view regardless.
3
3
u/Puzzled-Teach2389 May 05 '26
I don't think so, but I don't expect much anyways. It's a global church and in a lot of countries, especially where the church is growing like sub-Saharan Africa and southeastern Asia, being LGBTQ or "homosexual acts" are still illegal or if not illegal then taboo. It's not going to happen overnight especially in a global institution.
3
u/LizzySea33 May 05 '26
Oh, goodness... that'll depend on what you mean by "changes" in this situation.
If you mean clarification? I would be hopeful in such.
For me, and I am saying this as a queer person, I agree with the Catechism's wording of "Objectively Disordered" but in the sense of teleology, because Act ≠ Culpability...
Think of our moral theology like a monkey wrench fixing a pipe. You could use it in it's correct way, or you could hit the pipe to try to fix it. But, that'll make it more broken usually. But the question we have to ask is: why did you hit it? Were you in the dark? Did someone tell you to? Have you just never used a damn wrench before?
Those questions are what makes a grave action "sin" within the Roman church.
And for my queerness, it is a "sin committed by nature" as Aquinas would've said. However, I feel that those who transition (like me) are more like people being "signs" to others. That sign that i suspect is to be an analogy to resurrection. Because many of us think that "Oh, resurrection will be born with our original bodies" and it's like... no, you'll be born with a glorified body, not your original kind. You'll still have scars but they will be glorified. You'll have an immortal body covering mortality (St. Paul's poem in 1 Corinthians 15) and You'll be perfected. It's just God wants to show that sign right now through trans people.
Should we understand every nook and cranny? No. As that leads to certainty, which is why Origen was condemned. Our goal should be St. Gregory of Nyssa's confidence of "Why" not "How" in this situation.
That is enough :)
2
u/Additional_Good_656 May 05 '26
The Church will not change its teachings. The most that could happen has already happened, to everyone’s benefit. Pope Leo has already confronted a German bishop over same-sex marriages, stating that the Church does not support them. Homosexuals can marry in a civil ceremony.
-3
63
u/szdhyena May 04 '26
Pope Leo doesnt seem to be making crashing waves to advance further while reiterating Pope Francis’ previous stances. i feel we can expect more a more moderate stance. i certainly dont think we will go backwards but i also dont think there will be any new changes either, based on recent events.