Why do bishops (catholic) in some dioceses say that the Pope is outdated and ignoring scripture by refusing same-sex couples the sacrament of marriage, i.e. making their union holy. (Example). They believe that blessing these couples is supported by scripture, but I am not sure where they find support for that claim. One priest in my city says God is "I am" not "I was", and as our understanding develops we ought to see that we should extend our blessings to even "non-traditional" marriages.

Since it's not just one or two priests accusing the Pope, but rather many bishops including the president of the bishops' conference in Germany, I don't think this can easily be dismissed as a heretical priest or something like that. I would therefore like to know why they believe it is justified and in line with Scripture to extend the sacrament of marriage to homosexual marriages.

  • It's different from my question. I'm asking about why bishops would think it's in line with our faith to bless same-sex marriages like we bless normal marriages. The question you've linked is about why homosexuality might not be considered a sin and the answers don't mention why bishops would bless that union and make it sacred.
    – Suryetto
    Commented Mar 24, 2021 at 16:14
  • 1
    If homosexuality isn't a sin then it's OK to bless same sex marriages. Commented Mar 24, 2021 at 16:19
  • There's a difference made between attraction and action. The general consensus seems to be that attraction is not a sin whereas the act is. Think how a single man is attracted to a woman, but he can't act on that attraction before he is married to her and the union made sacred.
    – Suryetto
    Commented Mar 24, 2021 at 16:26
  • Sorry I used a shorthand there. I meant "homosexual sex acts". Commented Mar 24, 2021 at 16:30
  • @DJClayworth I understand the logic, but why do these bishops think it isn't a sin?
    – Suryetto
    Commented Mar 24, 2021 at 16:45

2 Answers 2


Why are there heretics? Why don't they think acts of sodomy are sins? Because of sin and ignorance, the "mystery of iniquity" (2 Thes. 2:7).

Specifically, though, because they think condemning homosexual acts (like condemning acts of contraception, adultery, divorce, and concubinage) is not "inclusive", "welcoming", "compassionate", "pastoral", or "civil".

Here is how some U.S. bishops unfaithful to Church teaching on homosexuality or LGBT ideology put it:

  • Calls it "clericalism":
    During the 2018 sex abuse crisis, Cardinal Cupich claimed that the real issue was “clericalism” and not homosexuality. Cupich told America, a liberal Catholic newspaper, that blaming the abuse on homosexuality was a “diversion” away from clericalism. (LifeSiteNews)
  • Opposes Church teaching on intrinsically evil acts:
    McElroy also said the Church “should not” refer to homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered, which he believes is an example of “very destructive language.” Rather, the Church should use “language that is inclusive.” (America)
  • Supports giving Communion to those in public sin:
    In July 2017, Bishop McGrath told practicing homosexuals in his diocese that he will not refuse Holy Eucharist or a Catholic funeral to them so long as they request them “in good faith.” McGrath claimed this was the “compassionate and pastoral” thing to do. (LifeSiteNews)
  • Doesn't think civil law should uphold natural law:
    Following the Supreme Court’s decision [Obergefell v. Hodges] to legalize gay “marriage” in 2015, [D.C.'s] Archbishop Gregory provided a weak and ambiguous statement, emphasizing how there must remain “obligations of civility toward one another” going forward. Instead of affirming the evil of homosexual acts, Archbishop Wilton Gregory simply said the Church’s teaching does not change, and the ruling merely “confers a civil entitlement to some people who could not claim it before.” (The Georgia Bulletin)

courtesy: Faithful Shepherds

  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Ken Graham
    Commented Mar 29, 2021 at 13:20

Why do bishops (catholic) in some dioceses say that the Pope is outdated and ignoring scripture by refusing same-sex couples the sacrament of marriage ...

I don't know if this is simply a misunderstanding:

I'm living in Germany (just like the Bishop mentioned in your link) and last week I was talking to other people of my parish.

It turned out that (the German translation of) the Vatican's statement can be understood in different ways. The two extremes are:

  1. Same-sex couples cannot have a sacramemental marriage
  2. The blessing at the end of the Holy Mass excludes people who live together with a partner of the same sex

(Of course, some meanings "in the middle" are also possible.)

These are two completely different possible meanings of exactly the same statement.

It seems to me that many people here in Germany understood the statement of the Vatican in a way that comes quite close to the second meaning!

I doubt that the bishop mentioned in the link really thinks that something similar to a sacrament should be introduced in the Catholic Church.

It is just speculation, but I think that the bishop understood the Vatican's statement in the second way (just like many Germans did) and actually wants to say that he refuses that second meaning of the statement.

Unfortunately, in the last few years it happened very often that statements of German Catholics (both statements of bishops and lays!) were mis-understood in the Vatican as well as by the press in countries that do not speak German.

As a consequence, the press in the other countries falsely reported that some German Catholics made a certain statement.

  • 1
    What American (i.e. national catholic register/ewtn) reporting led us to believe was that the German Bishops were attempting to add some sort of pseudo-marriage blessing to the GIRM so gays and lesbians could do something in a church that might be indistinguishable from marriage.
    – Peter Turner
    Commented Mar 26, 2021 at 15:48
  • What you're saying is that the German Bishops were under the impression that the GIRM was excluding people living in homosexual unions in its ordinary blessings?
    – Peter Turner
    Commented Mar 26, 2021 at 15:52
  • 1
    @PeterTurner This is what I also understood when I heared about the "No" from Vatican the first time. For this reason I agreed to the Vatican's position. However, the other people in my parish understood that it's about a "simple" blessing - just like a Christian football team prays together with some priest before the match and the priest blesses the team at the end of that prayer... I don't know about the prehistory of the "No" from Rome, so I don't know what the Bishops originally requested. Commented Mar 26, 2021 at 17:09
  • Interesting that many understood it the second way. To me the statement from the vatican easily seemed to mean the first one. So that would explain the protests in the German speaking regions incl. Switzerland and Austria. Thanks for the German perspective!
    – Suryetto
    Commented Mar 29, 2021 at 8:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .