So by "relationships" he just meant "marriage" as church always did? It's clear from the context he is not, since lower there is mentions of "same-sex relationships", not to mention even the word itself suggest any something wider.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think he's intentionally vague when using the word relationships. The word does not explicitly mean any one thing. But yeah sex within marriage has always been praised in Christianity. It's been a big selling point of marriage in general. I don't see anything in the article to suggest he's explicitly blessed homosexual sex or truly changed any doctrine.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago

Yeah, if that was taken on a face value then the acceptance of all kinds of extramarital relationships would be a big doctrinal change, but nothing is happening, as i noted in my first post.