This unexpected turn has generated a series of questions that go beyond a simple issue of organization, sparking debates about the tensions between pastoral openness and doctrinal faithfulness.

An Event That Appeared, Disappeared and Might Reappear? 

The episode began when Christian LGBT associations, under the auspices of “Jonathan’s Tent,” announced that their pilgrimage had been included in the Jubilee’s official program. However, a few days later, the event disappeared from the calendar published on the event’s official site.

The Vatican’s explanations have not been altogether consistent. Agnese Palmussi, member of the Jubilee’s communication team, assured that the elimination was due to the lack of specific information by the organizers, such as the number of participants and logistical details. Nevertheless, the doubt remains: why was the event approved initially without this information? And, even more important, why was it not left pending rather than eliminating it?

A Debate That Goes Beyond The Logistics

The heart of the controversy doesn’t lie in the logistics, but in the symbolic and theological implications. The problem isn’t that LGBT people take part in the Jubilee events – a fact that doesn’t generate opposition – but that it is included officially in organizations that promote an LGBT identity narrative, which is incompatible with the Church’s traditional teaching on sexuality.

The presence of these associations poses fundamental questions about how the Vatican addresses the questions of sexual identity and orientation within the faith. Is it a gesture of pastoral openness to people that seek to reconcile their faith with their identity? Or is it a concession that could be interpreted as an implicit doctrinal change?

Internal Tensions and Critical Voices

According to sources close to the Vatican, the initial publication of the event unleashed significant tensions within the Curia, which led to its sudden elimination. This incident has highlighted the internal division about how to manage topics related to the LGBT community. For some, the initial inclusion represented a welcome gesture coherent with the spirit of Pope Francis’ pontificate. For others, it was a dangerous concession that diluted the traditional teaching.

What Next? 

Although the Vatican has tried to calm the waters, promising a possible reincorporation of the event after receiving the requested details, the debate is far from over. At stake is not only the organization of a calendar, but the more profound question about how the Church addresses the challenges of a changing world without compromising her theological foundations.

The post The “Mystery” of the LGBT Pilgrimage in the Jubilee 2025: A Polemic Between Inclusivity and Controversy appeared first on ZENIT - English.

A Childhood Marked by Early Transition 

Callahan-DuMont claims her child expressed a transgender identity from infancy. “Violet told us who she was before she could even fully speak,” she said, emphasizing her belief that her child’s gender identity was evident by the age of 18 months.

The family traveled to D.C. to support the American Civil Liberties Union’s “Free to Be Ourselves” rally outside the Court. Violet, now 10, shared concerns about safety and acceptance. «I’m scared of being hurt just for being who I am,” Violet said in a CNN interview, highlighting the challenges young transgender individuals face in today’s polarized climate.

Legal and Political Implications 

The Supreme Court’s ruling, expected in June, will determine the constitutionality of Tennessee’s 2022 law barring transgender medical treatments for minors. Arizona’s similar law, signed by former Governor Doug Ducey, could also face revocation if the Court strikes down Tennessee’s statute.

After yesterday’s SCOTUS hearing determining if states can ban trans procedures for kids, @DailySignal interviewed a family who claimed their son knew he was a trans girl since BIRTH

Little did we know the family had already used their child for @CNN stardom. https://t.co/ytyWVk77Qn pic.twitter.com/ikwF8sme5l

— Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell (@TheElizMitchell) December 5, 2024

Critics of such state bans argue they strip families of autonomy and endanger transgender youth, while supporters assert that such interventions are irreversible and should not be accessible to minors.

Public and Personal Advocacy 

Callahan-DuMont has become a vocal advocate for transgender rights, managing Violet’s public social media profiles to raise awareness. Posts often emphasize the need for legal protections and healthcare access for transgender youth.

In the wake of the 2024 presidential election, Violet’s concerns about their future became a focal point of family discussions. “Are we going to have to move? Will I be taken away? Will I lose my medication?” Violet reportedly asked after the election results were announced, reflecting broader fears among LGBTQ+ advocates about shifting political landscapes.

Divisive National Conversation 

This case highlights the growing national tension surrounding the rights of transgender minors and parental authority. While families like Violet’s advocate for affirmation and access to medical care, opponents raise ethical concerns about early transitions and the potential for harm.

The Supreme Court’s decision will likely set a precedent for how far states can go in regulating such deeply personal medical choices, shaping the legal and cultural landscape for years to come.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post USA: Supreme Court Case Sparks Debate Over Transgender Policies for Minors appeared first on ZENIT - English.

Massive Spending on Gender Transition Services 

From January 2018 to September 2023, 16 states collectively spent over $165 million on gender transition-related services, with $45 million allocated for minors aged 17 or younger. Illinois, Oregon, and Washington led the expenditures, collectively accounting for over $98 million, including services for children. These services range from mental health counseling to life-altering surgeries, with procedures such as mastectomies and hormone treatments now increasingly covered by Medicaid and other state programs.

A Systematic Shift in Accessibility 

Under Democratic administrations, key policy changes have reshaped how healthcare systems approach gender transition services. The Obama-Biden administration’s reinterpretation of anti-discrimination policies in 2014 and 2016 marked the beginning of this shift. By redefining «sex discrimination» to include gender identity, insurers were mandated to cover gender-affirming care, from hormone therapy to surgical procedures.

The Biden-Harris administration further restored and expanded these measures, reversing Trump-era rollbacks and reinforcing mandates for insurers and healthcare providers to offer gender transition services. Critics, including Roger Severino, former director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services, argue that these policies impose ideological compliance on medical professionals, often at odds with their clinical judgment.

Children at the Forefront of Debate

Data underscores a marked rise in pediatric gender transition interventions. Between 2016 and 2019, surgeries for children aged 12 to 18 tripled, according to a 2023 Journal of the American Medical Association study. Factors driving this surge include increased accessibility through Medicaid and the proliferation of specialists in gender-affirming care. Dr. Jason Rafferty, a leading voice in pediatric gender policy, attributes the growth to the removal of financial and logistical barriers, with more surgeons now available to perform these procedures.

Look at those #s https://t.co/oCBZV2meeX pic.twitter.com/PdylS72l6U

— Do No Harm (@donoharm) October 13, 2024

However, the growing prevalence of such interventions has ignited fierce ethical debates. Advocacy groups like Do No Harm argue that current practices prioritize political agendas over evidence-based care, with profound and potentially irreversible impacts on minors.

Financial Transparency and Public Concern

Obtaining a comprehensive picture of taxpayer spending on these services remains challenging. While some states provided detailed data to DCNF, others declined outright or imposed prohibitive fees for access to public records. For instance, Rhode Island demanded over $3,000 for processing requests, raising questions about accountability and transparency in public healthcare expenditures.

A Polarizing Policy Landscape

The rapid expansion of gender transition services highlights the broader polarization surrounding gender identity and healthcare. Proponents argue these measures represent essential steps toward inclusivity and mental health support for transgender individuals. Detractors counter that such policies compel taxpayers to fund experimental procedures, particularly for minors, and erode medical professionals’ autonomy.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Gender ideology: Biden administration has spent $165 million on genital mutilation for children appeared first on ZENIT - English.

Legislative Intent and Concerns
Senator Marshall, a physician who has delivered over 5,000 babies, described the legislation as a necessary response to what he views as a progressive overreach. «We shouldn’t need a law to affirm that there are only two sexes—male and female,» he stated. «But today, we must safeguard these definitions from political agendas that put our children at risk.»

The proposed bill emphasizes protections for women’s spaces, including sports, scholarships, restrooms, and shelters, by restricting access based on biological sex. Marshall criticized the current administration for advancing policies that he claims disregard science and endanger women and girls.

Reactions from Co-Sponsors
Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho echoed Marshall’s sentiments, emphasizing the importance of recognizing biological differences for safety and fairness. «Women and girls deserve to feel secure and respected in all environments,» Crapo asserted.

Representative Mary Miller of Illinois linked the bill to broader voter sentiment. «The American people rejected radical transgender policies on November 5,» she stated, referring to recent electoral outcomes. «This bill reflects a clear mandate to preserve women’s rights and spaces while protecting children.»

Challenging the Biden Administration’s Policies
The legislation directly counters policies implemented under President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) attempted to reinterpret anti-discrimination provisions in the Affordable Care Act to include gender identity, requiring healthcare providers to cover transgender treatments for both adults and minors. This rule was blocked by the courts but remains a flashpoint in the gender policy debate.

Similarly, revisions to Title IX under the Biden administration sought to expand protections against sex-based discrimination to include gender identity. This move raised concerns about the inclusion of biological males in female sports and spaces, sparking legal challenges and a broader cultural backlash.

Core Provisions of the Bill
The proposed legislation seeks to codify that every individual is either biologically male or female, as determined at birth or earlier through medical observation. It explicitly denies the validity of self-identification as a determinant of sex.

Key definitions would be anchored in biology, with terms like «man,» «woman,» «mother,» and «father» clarified. The bill also equates «gender» with «sex,» rejecting its use as shorthand for identity or roles unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Potential Implications
If enacted, the bill would reverse certain Biden-era policies and create a legal foundation to safeguard biological distinctions in law, education, and public life. Advocates argue it would protect women’s rights and ensure fairness, while critics are likely to view it as an infringement on LGBTQ+ protections and identity rights.

With a sharply divided Congress and a White House unlikely to support the measure, the act may serve more as a political statement than an immediate legal shift. However, its introduction highlights the deepening divide over gender ideology and its role in American policy.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post USA: Republican Senators Push for Biological Clarity in Gender Definitions appeared first on ZENIT - English.

(ZENIT News – Center for Family and Human Rights / New York, 12.04.2024).- A coalition of Western governments, including the United States and the European Union pushed hard at the just-concluded UN Climate Conference (COP29) for the inclusion of gender ideology in the final document. A coalition of traditional governments stopped them.

Diplomats and political leaders from nearly every country gathered with the goal of increasing financial contributions to fight the controversial topic of “climate change.” The conference considered a set of agreements, one of which addressed the intersection of gender and climate.

Western governments and feminist activists, on a quest to further an agenda that promotes gender diversity and widespread access to abortion, hoped for a progressive text on gender. Despite their pressure, the Vatican, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and Egypt, among other socially conservative countries, rejected the inclusion of controversial language in the final agreement.

The mainstream media referred to traditional countries as “blocking discussions over women’s rights,” while the government of Colombia called the Vatican’s stances “unacceptable.”

The initial draft included language on empowering “women in all their diversity” defined by the WHO as referring to “women who are heterosexual, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or intersex…women who are or have been involved in sex work…”

Advocating for an “ambitious gender action plan” in the context of COP29, the EU said it “recognizes the importance of including women and men, and girls and boys in all their diversity […] in climate action.” Australia, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States, among others, joined the statement.

The EU also proposed a paragraph that would reference gender as a special category of vulnerability to be attended to in the context of climate disruptions. Socially conservative countries, aware of the progressive interpretation of “gender rights” within the UN system, opposed the paragraph altogether. During an exchange with BBC, the delegate from the Holy See clarified that their opposition stems from their stance on transgenderism.

Women Deliver, a global ‘women’s rights’ advocacy group pushing for widespread access to abortion, said COP29 would be an opportunity to “make sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) and the needs of adolescent girls central to every climate discussion and policy decision.”

At a COP29 side event on gender-based violence, Women Deliver said that they understand SRHR to include comprehensive sexuality education and abortion services, implying that denial of such services could amount to a form of gender-based violence.

In 2016, the US described gender based violence as “an umbrella term for any harmful threat or act directed at an individual or group based on actual or perceived biological sex, gender identity and/or expression, sexual orientation, and/or lack of adherence to varying socially constructed norms around masculinity and femininity.”

More recently, the Biden administration expressed support for a treaty that could render misgendering a crime against humanity through the concept of “gender-based persecution.”

In this context, many progressive groups hoped the final text would retain the provision on gender based violence. Nonetheless, the final text agreed by consensus did not feature “women in all their diversity”, “gender-based violence”, and gender as a special category of vulnerability.

UN Women called for “a clear push for gender-responsive climate finance that is accessible to women-led grassroots organizations and feminist groups…”

The COP29 final agreement on climate finance, which committed developed countries to transfer at least $300 billion per year for climate funding for developing countries, did not include the word “gender.”

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Gender Rejected at UN Climate Conference appeared first on ZENIT - English.

The Fourth Section of the Administrative Litigation Chamber determined that the flag’s placement during Pride celebrations—such as in the courtyard of the Valladolid Provincial Council and the main balcony of Zaragoza City Hall—aligns with efforts to promote equality. The court concluded that the flag is not a partisan symbol nor one that incites division, but rather serves as a representation of inclusivity and tolerance.

Majority View: Promoting Equality, Not Division

The ruling emphasized that public administrations have a responsibility to foster inclusivity, and displaying the rainbow flag is consistent with this mandate. The judges found that the symbol does not conflict with the neutrality expected of governmental institutions but instead reflects their role in promoting social equality.

A Dissenting Voice

The decision, however, was not unanimous. Magistrate José Luis Requero dissented, arguing that the rainbow flag represents an ideological stance tied to gender theory and sexual diversity, which remains a point of contention in society. He contended that such displays by public institutions blur the line between promoting inclusivity and endorsing ideological positions, which could infringe on the constitutional mandate of neutrality.

Requero stated, “The administration’s role is to ensure respect, inclusion, and equality, but displaying the flag goes beyond these objectives, effectively endorsing controversial ideological principles.”

Legal Challenge Ahead

The Spanish Foundation of Christian Lawyers (“Abogados Cristianos”) announced plans to challenge the Supreme Court’s decision in the Constitutional Court, viewing it as a dangerous precedent. The group’s president, Polonia Castellanos, criticized the ruling as evidence of political interference in the judiciary, citing broader concerns about judicial independence under the current government.

“This ruling reflects the erosion of impartiality in our judicial system,” Castellanos remarked, pledging to escalate the case to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.

The ruling comes at a time when debates over the role of public institutions in advocating for social causes are intensifying across Europe. It underscores the tension between fostering inclusivity and maintaining institutional neutrality in diverse societies.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Spain: Supreme Court Ruling Upholds Rainbow Flag Display on Public Buildings appeared first on ZENIT - English.

The Episode: Breaking Barriers

In “The Gatekeeper”, Brooklyn, a transgender classmate of protagonist Lunella Lafayette (aka Moon Girl), faces discrimination when a rival coach refuses to let her join the girls’ volleyball team. Brooklyn’s journey becomes the emotional core of the episode, highlighting the challenges faced by transgender youth in sports and society.

In a poignant moment, Brooklyn declares, «I’m trans. My very existence breaks Greer’s rules… How many more doors must I smash before they stop slamming them in my face?» The narrative features vivid symbols of pride and resilience, from Brooklyn’s knee pads emblazoned with the word «PRIDE» to a water bottle adorned with a «Trans Is Beautiful» sticker.

The episode culminates in a fantastical twist where the antagonist, Coach Greer, uses a magical key to trap Brooklyn and her teammates, symbolizing the barriers imposed by prejudice. However, the story ends on a note of empowerment, with Brooklyn overcoming obstacles through the support of her coach and peers.

Corporate Retraction

Shortly after its initial release, the episode was removed from Disney’s platforms. While no formal statement was issued, insiders suggest that the decision followed internal concerns about the episode’s political implications. The removal has since drawn sharp criticism from both within and outside the company.

Derrick Malik Johnson, a writer for the show, lamented the decision, stating, «Brooklyn’s story was a labor of love for our team—a reflection of countless real-life experiences. To see it erased is devastating.» Similarly, Emmy Cicirega, an artist known for “Gravity Falls”, condemned the move, accusing Disney of prioritizing controversy avoidance over meaningful representation.

Political Context and Cultural Reactions

The episode’s removal comes at a time of heightened tension around transgender rights in the United States. Newly elected President Donald Trump has pledged to roll back inclusive policies on gender identity in education and sports, reversing measures implemented by the Biden administration under Title IX. These developments have amplified debates about transgender participation in athletics, making the episode a flashpoint in broader cultural and political battles.

Animator Matt Braly contextualized the episode’s significance, stating, «In an era of rising anti-trans rhetoric, stories like Brooklyn’s are more vital than ever. They humanize experiences often reduced to political talking points.»

Conversely, critics argue that topics such as gender identity should not feature in programming aimed at young children. Advocacy groups opposing the episode’s themes applauded Disney’s decision, citing concerns about exposing children to complex sociopolitical issues.

The Broader Implications

The controversy surrounding “The Gatekeeper” underscores the challenges entertainment companies face in navigating representation and public reception. With children’s programming increasingly intersecting with cultural debates, platforms like Disney are finding themselves at the forefront of ideological battles.

This decision also raises questions about corporate responsibility in storytelling: Should entertainment merely reflect societal norms, or should it challenge and expand them?

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Gender ideology: Disney removes a “trans” episode of “Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur” appeared first on ZENIT - English.

The Proposal at Stake

The HHS draft rule mandates compliance with non-discrimination policies for entities seeking federal contracts. It lacks specific definitions of what constitutes «discrimination» and omits religious exemptions. Critics contend that this ambiguity could lead to mandates requiring Catholic entities to perform gender transition surgeries, provide hormone treatments, or deliver affirming counseling services—actions at odds with their religious convictions.

The regulation would impact Catholic hospitals involved in Medicare and Medicaid, as well as organizations engaged in social services like adoption, foster care, and immigration assistance, areas where Catholic agencies have traditionally been significant contributors.

Religious Freedom Concerns

In a detailed public comment, the USCCB called on HHS to abandon the proposal, emphasizing the lack of clarity in its implementation and the potential conflict with constitutional protections for religious freedom. The bishops warned that the rule, as written, threatens to undermine Catholic agencies’ ability to serve the public while adhering to their faith.

«The rule leaves critical questions unanswered about how these requirements will apply across the diverse programs and services under HHS,» the bishops noted. They added that the policy could penalize entities unwilling to endorse certain ideologies, forcing them out of vital public service roles.

A Pattern of Conflict

This is not the first clash between the Biden administration’s HHS and Catholic organizations. In 2022, the department sought to mandate abortions in emergency cases under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). That rule was blocked by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court declined to review the decision.

Similarly, Catholic hospitals successfully challenged a previous HHS rule attempting to compel them to provide transgender medical procedures, citing religious objections.

Implications for the Future 

The public comment period for the proposed regulation ends on December 2, after which HHS will determine its next steps. However, political developments may shift the trajectory.

President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to overturn policies promoting what he calls «gender ideology.» He has proposed a federal ban on transgender surgeries for minors and signaled strong support for religious liberty. Trump’s pick to lead HHS, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is expected to shape future policies if confirmed by the Senate.

Broader Impacts

The proposal highlights growing tensions between government regulations and religious freedoms. Catholic organizations argue their service to communities is guided by faith-based principles, which must not be compromised by policy mandates.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post U.S. Catholic Bishops Challenge HHS Proposal on Gender Identity Policy appeared first on ZENIT - English.

The company will not renew its five-year commitment to a racial equity center and is stepping away from the Human Rights Campaign’s workplace inclusion index for LGBTQ advocacy. Additionally, Walmart plans to tighten oversight of third-party marketplace products, particularly those aimed at minors, such as transgender-related items like chest binders.

A New Focus on Core Principles

Walmart clarified its intent in a statement shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation, emphasizing its mission to serve all customers while adapting to shifting societal expectations. “Our purpose of helping people save money and live better continues to guide us,” the statement read. “While we strive to foster belonging and opportunity for all, we’re evolving alongside our customers and associates across America.”

The retailer’s move follows increasing public scrutiny of DEI initiatives across the corporate sector, with some arguing these programs prioritize ideological goals over business performance.

The Corporate Retreat from DEI

Walmart’s recalibration echoes similar actions by other major companies. Target, for instance, faced a significant backlash after releasing LGBTQ-themed products for children, leading to decreased sales forecasts and a $13 billion drop in market value. Similarly, Bud Light lost $1.4 billion in sales in 2023 after a marketing campaign featuring a transgender influencer sparked nationwide boycotts.

Even iconic firms like Boeing, Ford, and Lowe’s have scaled back DEI programs recently. Conservative activists and shareholders have amplified pressure, questioning the return on investment for such initiatives.

A Political Undercurrent 

The rollback comes as cultural and political tensions around DEI intensify. Former President Donald Trump has pledged to dismantle “woke” ideologies within corporate America. Investment groups have also cautioned companies that DEI strategies might face heightened challenges under a more conservative administration.

The Broader Implications

Walmart’s strategic shift could mark a broader recalibration of corporate priorities. With over 1.6 million employees in the U.S. alone, Walmart’s decisions carry weight in shaping workplace practices across the retail industry.

While the retailer emphasizes inclusivity and belonging, the move away from certain DEI initiatives reflects a pragmatic approach to balancing societal expectations with market realities. As corporations navigate this evolving landscape, Walmart’s actions could set a precedent for others reassessing their own DEI commitments.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Walmart joins companies that will stop promoting gender ideology appeared first on ZENIT - English.

A Bishop at the Crossroads of Tradition and Activism

Bishop Stowe, known for his advocacy on LGBTQ+ matters, has drawn both praise and criticism for his progressive approach. While the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are morally disordered and opposes transgender ideology, Stowe has consistently emphasized inclusivity and dialogue.

In his acceptance speech, Stowe highlighted the slow pace of change within the Church, particularly regarding LGBTQ+ language and theology. He lamented what he described as outdated theological frameworks and called for greater acknowledgment of gender and sexual diversity. “The Spirit calls us to community and participation,” he said, urging patience while also expressing frustration with the Church’s perceived inertia.

A Controversial Recognition

New Ways Ministry, the awarding organization, has long been at odds with official Church teaching. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) explicitly stated in 2010 that the group “has no approval or recognition from the Catholic Church” and cautioned Catholics against its interpretations of Church teaching.

Despite this, Stowe’s alignment with New Ways Ministry and his efforts to bridge the gap between LGBTQ+ individuals and the Church have made him a prominent figure in this debate. Sister Jeannine Gramick, co-founder of New Ways Ministry and censured by the Vatican for her views, praised Stowe’s “bold and courageous statements” in support of LGBTQ+ people.

 A Pattern of Advocacy

Bishop Stowe’s record of LGBTQ+ advocacy is extensive. He has endorsed the use of inclusive language, supported gender pronouns aligning with individuals’ preferences, and organized events promoting LGBTQ+ inclusion within the Church. Notable actions include:

– Hosting a 2019 LGBT retreat at the University of Notre Dame.

– Issuing a public apology during Pride Month in 2020 for what he described as the Church’s failure to support LGBTQ+ individuals.

– Supporting the Equality Act, a legislative proposal that critics argue undermines religious freedoms and women’s rights.

– Promoting LGBTQ+-inclusive initiatives within his diocese, including a controversial “Service of Atonement” for past Church teachings.

Critics and Defenders

While supporters view Stowe as a trailblazer advocating for marginalized groups, critics argue that his approach contradicts Church teachings and risks sowing confusion among the faithful. Many see his actions as indicative of a broader trend within parts of the Church under Pope Francis, who has emphasized pastoral care and outreach to all individuals, including those in LGBTQ+ communities.

The Future of Dialogue

The award to Bishop Stowe underscores the tension between traditional Catholic teachings and efforts to engage with contemporary social issues. As debates over inclusivity and doctrinal fidelity continue, Stowe’s advocacy raises questions about the Church’s future approach to LGBTQ+ issues and whether a balance can be struck between compassion and adherence to doctrine.

In his closing remarks, Stowe called for greater openness and understanding, stating, “The journey is slow, but the Spirit compels us forward.” For his supporters, these words signal hope for change, while for his critics, they highlight concerns about doctrinal drift.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Pro-LGBT+ bishop receives award in USA and criticizes “obsolete theological frameworks” of the Church appeared first on ZENIT - English.