The Vatican made news on Monday for not condemning same-sex marriage. Catholic leaders struck their most conciliatory tone yet on the issue, following a week of closed-door meetings called a “synod.” In a preliminary document summarizing the deliberations, the leaders said that, "Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community. Are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities?"
To understand this reaction, consider how far the Papacy has come on LGBT issues in what is, by Church standards, a short span of time. John Paul II said in 2005 that the "family is often threatened by legislation which—at times directly—challenges its natural structure, which is and must necessarily be that of a union between a man and a woman founded on marriage." His successor, Pope Benedict XVI, took many occasions to condemn gay marriage publicly. On World Peace Day and Christmas, Benedict equated gay marriage to an attack on the "essence of the human creature" and presenting a "serious harm to justice and peace." He even called gay couples "intrinsically disordered." But Francis? In September of last year he famously said, "If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?"
That doesn’t mean Francis or the Vatican is ready to condone homosexuality. Reportedly, in a private conversation with a bishop in December, Francis said he was “shocked” at gay adoption. The synod document also maintained that same-sex marriage "cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman."
Nor it is clear that this rhetorical shift will evolve into a doctrinal one anytime soon. Among other things, the group of American Catholic Bishops who have long advocated against gay marriage will need more convincing. But the synod document, says Vatican reporter Tom Roberts for TNR, “in effect takes the weapons out of the hands of the hierarchical culture warriors.” John Allen writes at the Crux, a Boston Globe website on Catholic news, that "None of this means that Catholic doctrine is on the brink of changing, as the synod has made clear that’s not in the cards," But, he adds, it may augur a new era of what might be called “lifestyle ecumenism,” in which the church approaches people living outside its ideal for marriage with friendship rather than condemnation."
In other words, this could be the start of Church finally being nudged in a slightly more welcoming direction.
FERGUSON: Though the media’s attention may have shifted away from Ferguson since Michael Brown’s shooting in August, the protesters are still there. On Monday, Cornel West and other activists and religious leaders were arrested for demonstrating outside the Ferguson police station. (Monica Davey and Alan Blinder, New York Times)
EBOLA: The CDC is thinking through its recommendation for how health care workers handle Ebola cases, now that a nurse taking care of Thomas Eric Duncan in Dallas, Texas, has contracted the disease. (Mark Berman, Washington Post)
CLIMATE: For the first time, the Pentagon is framing climate change as an immediate risk to U.S. national security, instead of a distant threat. (W.J. Hennigan, Los Angeles Times)
Articles Worth Reading
Maybe if it was oil companies, they'd feel better. Republicans claim environmental groups had too much influence over the EPA's new power plant rules. Jonathan Chait is baffled. (New York) Rebecca Leber wrote about this a few weeks ago and was similarly mystified. (QED)
Low hopes for immigration reform: If Republicans win back the Senate, does that mean immigration reform stands a better chance of happening? Ramesh Ponnuru doesn't think so. (Bloomberg View)
You better be pretty damn sure: Ezra Klein explains why he thinks California's new affirmative consent law is terrible, but supports it anyways. (Vox)
Overreacting to Ebola is bad, too: Jeremy Samuel Faust, a New York City physician, worries that panic will soak up resources health care professionals need for more dangerous bugs. (Slate)
The Denver Post endorsed Republican Cory Gardner and Danny Vinik doesn’t get it, since the editorial page editors don’t agree with almost any of Gardner’s policy stances. A Senator retweeted one of Jonathan Cohn’s articles, urging that Ebola policy focus more on Africa than the U.S. The reaction online was really, really ugly. In electoral news, a GOP Senate candidate has a history of comparing reparations with welfare, Brian Beutler reports. And as you may have heard, some members of Congress think we need an Ebola czar. Rebecca thinks there are at least three better ways Congress could channel its energies.