Why Not Go Farther?

I SEE A LOT IS BEING made of what is being presented as Pope Leo casting shade on non-hetero "normal" marriages in an address he made to the Vatican Diplomatic Corps, the other day.   It is being presented in a way that a lot of my fellow LGBTQ+ People will, no doubt, be offended by as could, very easily Women or men who had single-parent families and,  I'll point out, those who have made other kinds of marriages than the minority of those covered by the remarks.   

This can be achieved above all by investing in the family, founded upon the stable union between a man and a woman, “a small but genuine society, and prior to all civil society.”[2] *

I'll give you the entire context of this in the second of three words he said were the basis of the Church's, well,  I'll give you that paragraph too:

In our dialogue, I would like us to keep in mind three essential words that represent the pillars of the Church’s missionary activity and the aim of the Holy See’s diplomacy.

The first and third are certainly worth discussing but it is that one sentence this is focused on.  It appears in this context. 

The second word is justice. Working for peace requires acting justly. As I have already mentioned, I chose my name thinking first of all of Leo XIII, the Pope of the first great social Encyclical, Rerum Novarum. In this time of epochal change, the Holy See cannot fail to make its voice heard in the face of the many imbalances and injustices that lead, not least, to unworthy working conditions and increasingly fragmented and conflict-ridden societies. Every effort should be made to overcome the global inequalities – between opulence and destitution – that are carving deep divides between continents, countries and even within individual societies.  

It is the responsibility of government leaders to work to build harmonious and peaceful civil societies. This can be achieved above all by investing in the family, founded upon the stable union between a man and a woman, “a small but genuine society, and prior to all civil society.” [2] In addition, no one is exempted from striving to ensure respect for the dignity of every person, especially the most frail and vulnerable, from the unborn to the elderly, from the sick to the unemployed, citizens and immigrants alike.

My own story is that of a citizen, the descendant of immigrants, who in turn chose to emigrate. All of us, in the course of our lives, can find ourselves healthy or sick, employed or unemployed, living in our native land or in a foreign country, yet our dignity always remains unchanged: it is the dignity of a creature willed and loved by God.

Of course no one should hold their breath waiting for America's free press to notice that passage about "the global inequalities – between opulence and destitution – that are carving deep divides between continents, countries and even within individual societies," when they can gin up hatred of LGBTQ+ People for the free press and to  its owners' profit.  This piece is as much about how the free press will use selected sentences and phrases that Pope Leo uses, and nothing sells in the free press like sex.  

Note the the [2] just after the problematic quote which refers to a footnote that indicates this is a quote taken from Leo XIII's great encyclical, Rerum Novarum which was issued on 15 May 1891.   If there's one thing that Leo XIII was not thinking of it was LGBTQ+ families, which I doubt he could even imagine.   Leo XVI certainly can imagine such families and those other "non-standard" families I mentioned and others, such as families that result from divorced parents remarrying or, I'll point out, families that would fit entirely well within the ones covered by his definition THAT IS UNTIL ARE THEN ALTERED BY UNEXPECTED DIVORCE OR INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION OR DEATH.   I'm sure many of the families of those who Good Pope Francis was so concerned about,  those who were imprisoned, those who were separated by the necessity of a parent going abroad to try to get the means of support - immigrants (Leo has certainly taken up their cause even before he became Pope) and many others are as much in need of the concern of governments, churches and other institutions.  AND SO DO THOSE WHOSE PARENTS OR GUARDIANS AREN'T IN THE MINORITY OF MARRIAGES COVERED BY POPE LEO'S UNFORTUNATELY RESTRICTIVE SENTENCE.

My first question in regard to the remark about types of families is why shouldn't governments go farther in providing the good implied by Leo's claim of why they should focus on some families than in the subset of all families he chose to focus on.  

I will note that in no place at least in any document I've seen, has Leo opposed such support being given to the majority of families that aren't covered by the set he sets out as the supposed ideal.  Though that is certainly the implication being taken from it by those who hate LGBTQ+ People and our families.   Maybe I should start capitalizing Families,  because, as the two Leo's more than just imply,  People ideally live in families, if not biologically related People living in one or more households, then in families of friends.

I'll use this opportunity to advocate something I did when the marriage-equality issue was so much under discussion, after the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages in that state and the Republican-fascists and the free press used hatred of LGBTQ+ People to promote Republican politicians chances,  as they are doing now, no doubt using Leo's unfortunate sentence to do that. 

The government should not be in the marriage business, that is between couples and God, in the first instance and, somewhat down from there, whatever churches they choose to belong to.  Governments should have no more to do with that than to acknowledge households and relationships by recognizing civil unions of two adults who choose to enter into a civil union.   In discussing that at the time I noted that in France, the most common form of civil union was entered into by single daughters and their widowed or divorced or otherwise unmarried mothers.   Civil unions and families are what should enjoy the governmental protections that are given only under legal marriages now.  

The irony of the Catholic Church position on this is that it defines such homes only by the sex lives of those who head or form such families.  You'd think they would recognize that families can be formed when those who lead them don't have sex with each other and never intended to.   I know of families in which a Lesbian aunt or Gay uncle play as big a role in them as the biological parents or parent do.  Such a family which is not defined by anyone having sex with anyone would be left out of the concern of governments under this formulation AS WOULD THE CHILDREN GROWING UP IN SUCH FAMILIES. 

Update:  I should have mentioned that a lot of those who would make such vicious use of Pope Leo's statement would fail to notice that their own families are as not covered by what he says governments should be concerned with as those of LGBTQ+ parent-led families.   For a start, families in which one or both of the parents have adulterous relationships even if they stay married, those which, as I mentioned above, are formed after the divorce and remarriage of one or both of the hetero-sexual parents.   I don't have statistics BUT I'LL BET THE LARGE MAJORITY OF THOSE IN POLITICS AND THE MEDIA WHO MAKE SUCH USE OF IT ARE AS EXCLUDED BY POPE LEO AS SAME-SEX COUPLES' FAMILIES, in fact I'll bet that there are as large a percent of stable same-sex parent families of faithful couples as there are in hetero-sexual parent families.  I'll bet Lesbian couples raising children have a better track record of faithfulness than hetero-sexuals who would be taken as falling within Leo's definition. 

I wish I could find the clip of the former professional virgin, Ben Shapiro whining and squeaking about the only purpose of marriage being pro-creation.   Someone in the Q&A asked him if he intended to stop being married when he was done having children.   It's a question that any politician or media figure who says something along those lines should have to answer for IN TERMS OF THEIR OWN LIVES AND MARRIAGES.