Periodically, anyone who covers their charge, we witness discussions on the pope, who alternately is not very inclusive or has been incredibly inclusive. It is a theme that always occurs, and which is already the subject of hypothesis and forecasts about the possible actions of the new Pope.

When Francesco’s pontificate ended, many were to remember it in these terms or to evaluate this aspect. In general it is defined as an open Pope, who has given important signals of progress in some historically taboo areas for the Church. Yet in fact Francesco has not changed anything about the church doctrine, on “progressive” issues: homosexual couples are not recognized, women always have different roles from men, abortion is still condemned and so on.

It is absurd to exchange declarations for actions

The few times in which Bergoglio spoke positively of homosexuals, for example, it was evidently only with words; Not in the obvious sense that the Pope is also a politician and speaks as such, but in the sense that he has always been careful to never say anything really new. In fact, he said that every single homosexual is a sinner like everyone else, and therefore can receive the blessing; And this is pure and simple gospel. But he has not dreamed of saying that the Church can open to homosexual unions: those contradict the law of Christ. So a very symbolic opening, we could say.

The same goes for the women’s question: many praise him because he has appointed many of it in important positions, and this is certainly a fact to be detected, which is seen by many as the beginning of a real renewal. But Francesco, here too, has not revolutionized the system: women cannot however become deacons or priests. And so here they reproach him because he made fake changes.

But why should this amaze? That is, why should it be expected that the head of the Catholic Church is progressive and revolutionary?

The female figure in Catholicism plays a well -defined role

The same goes for the rumors of saddened reproach who came when he said that the woman is bride and mother. But do we know what religion this man is? The Madonna by virtue of what is celebrated, if not as a mother of Christ and the bride of God? It is as if you wanted to see the Pope at all costs in a good light by attributing reforming will that cannot have, or that if he had it could not implement.

Everyone to publish his phrase “when women command, things go” everywhere, as if he had meaning something: a phrase indeed even offensive, a kind of content with females now accustomed to being blanded with the candy of female superiority. But more you cannot expect, so much would be worth recreating a completely different religion from scratch. And again: incredible, the Pope spoke against fluid sexuality. But really? The head of a religion that would still like that he did not get sex out of the wedding is not open to something different from the two biological sexes. The irrational closure of the Church on everything that revolves around the world of sex and relationships between man and woman is not a recent invention.

How can you think that the Pope distorts his own religion?

Yet we complain if the Pope who has just disappeared has not changed anything, if the weddings are still only for heterosexuals, if the non -binary genre is not conceived etc. We have even heard of ambiguity in relation to the figure of Pope Francis, as if the fact of having appointed women or having said “Who am I to judge gays?” It could never be interpreted for something more than the phrases that make people discuss.

Also towards the Pope who was just elected, as I anticipated, we already hear the same speeches. “A pope who wants to be on the side of the last!”, As if there had ever been a priest who may have said not to be on the side of the last. Will this ever be translated into something different, in some changes in the economic privileges of the Church, in its role in the world economic context? Obviously not. Indeed, on the homosexual question the new pope is already compared with what would have been the “line” of Francesco: Leo XIV shows less opening, he said that the LGBT lifestyle is in contrast with the Gospel. Did anyone think instead they were compatible?