The real division in the Church isn't LGBTQ issues, but social justice

The appointment of Bishop Michael A. Saporito — who was an auxiliary bishop in the Diocese of Newark, New Jersey, and advocates the inclusion of people from the LGBTQ+ community in the Catholic Church — as bishop of the Diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey, brings back the discussion about the position of Pope Leo XIV regarding this issue.

Saporito, transferred to Metuchen on Sept. 15, 2026, has been involved for years in outreach to LGBTQ Catholics and has participated in gatherings organized by New Ways Ministry, a U.S. Catholic organization that promotes the inclusion of LGBTQ people in the Church.

During the time of Pope Francis, several cardinals and other high-ranking officials of the Catholic Church publicly positioned themselves against the pope because of his position on including those outside the rules of traditional sexual and family morality and also because of his criticism of capitalism as an “economic system that kills” and that promotes the “idolatry of money.”

Pope Leo XIV has followed the same direction, one that maintains conflicts within the Catholic Church.

When speaking about conflicts or internal divisions within the Catholic Church, during a press conference on the flight back from his trip to Africa on April 23, 2026, Pope Leo XIV said: “I think it’s very important to understand that the unity or division of the Church should not revolve around sexual matters.

We tend to think that when the Church is talking about morality, the only issue of morality is sexual. And in reality, I believe there are much greater, more important issues, such as justice, equality, freedom of men and women, freedom of religion, that would all take priority before that particular issue.”

This statement deserves calm analysis because this hierarchy of priorities presupposes a theological conception of God and the role and mission of Christianity in today’s world and, furthermore, it affects the relationship between Christianity and politics.

First, it is important here to avoid a misunderstanding about the non-centrality of sexual issues.

The Pope is not saying that human sexuality and the challenges that members of the LGBTQ+ community experience and face in today’s society are not important to the Church or to Christian theology, but rather that these issues should not be the axis of unity or division in the Church.

What is most important to him are more fundamental issues, such as justice and equality.

Equality and justice, in the Church’s own terms

The issues of justice and equality are fundamental in at least two senses.

The first is that the principle of human equality should guarantee the same fundamental rights to all human beings.

A concrete example is the right of all people to form a family, regardless of whether couples are heterosexual or homosexual or of other forms of gender.

This principle, from a Christian perspective, does not come from a theory or from biological science accepted in society, but from the faith that God loves all people equally, whether they are “men or women, free or slaves, Gentiles or Jews” (Gal. 3:28).

The second is the issue of justice. When the Catholic Church, and especially the last two popes, speak of justice, they are not speaking of justice based on a contract made in the market or on compliance with state laws.

Above the justice of the market or the state, the social doctrine of the Catholic Church refers to justice that occurs when all people have the minimum conditions to live with dignity.

These conditions are what allow all people to access work with compensation that guarantees a dignified life for their families, education, a health care system, and housing.

What is known as “social justice” or, more broadly, “socio-environmental justice.”

The fundamental equality of all people and social justice are two assumptions and, at the same time, objectives that allow human beings to fulfill themselves as free human beings.

It is worth recalling here what the 20th-century economist John Kenneth Galbraith said when speaking of a just society: “It is that each member, regardless of sex, race or ethnic origin, must have access to a dignified life. Undeniable differences in aspiration and qualification must be taken into account.” (The Good Society: A Human Agenda).

The neoliberal case against “social justice”

More important than the criticisms of conservative religious people — Catholics, Protestants, evangelicals, or those from other religious traditions — against the position of Pope Leo XIV, or of other leaders of other churches or religions, is the radical criticism by neoliberal thinkers of the notion of social justice.

This is because the denial of social justice and, with it, of the very notion of fundamental human rights (civil, political and social), denies any right above or outside the principle of the law of the market, which, at bottom, is an expression of the “law of the strongest.”

Friedrich Hayek (the Austrian-British economist widely regarded as neoliberalism’s foundational thinker), in criticizing the notion of social justice, said that “the gospel of ‘social justice’ aims at much more sordid sentiments: aversion to those who are better off, or simply envy, the most antisocial and harmful of all passions. This animosity toward great fortunes, which considers it a ‘scandal’ that some enjoy wealth while others have unmet basic needs, and hides under the name of justice what has nothing to do with it” (Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. II).

❝

Many are against gay people and policies of social inclusion for them because they believe that these sexual and family practices are against the laws of God.

Thus, from the perspective of the project of neoliberal civilization, all struggles or criticisms of the absurd and even pornographic concentration of wealth in the hands of some hyper-billionaires, accompanied by members of the world’s richest one percent, would be merely an expression of the envy of losers in free-market competition.

The difference between what Galbraith and Hayek said in the quotations above is the difference between the liberal project of a more just society for all humanity — without entering here into the discussion of whether it was well-intentioned or merely ideological propaganda — and the neoliberal project.

Hayek and others are at least more “honest” in saying that this progress is and will be only for a few.

A politically convenient alliance

Since in Western democracies elections are the most important mechanism for legitimizing the administration of the state and the “honest” discourse of Hayek and others does not generate votes, neoliberals need to form alliances with other conservative and neo-fascist sectors.

“Pure” neoliberalism is not compatible with democracy. It is no coincidence that the first experiment with the neoliberal project was imposed in Chile during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, and the multibillionaires of big tech and others of our time are expressing the view that the free market is not compatible with democracy.

Therefore, rather than the market adapting to the demands of democracy, democracy must be subject to the laws of the market.

A democracy that is “subjected” would then be synonymous with soft neo-fascism or simply a fascism that presents itself as the “freedom of the strong.”

In the alliance between neoliberals and neo-fascists, what we have in common is contempt for the “weak,” whether in the “free market” or in interpersonal and group relations of violence.

Neoliberals accept gay people or Black and non-white people in their environments if they achieve financial success, because their ultimate criterion is the market.

Neo-fascists have much more difficulty with gay people and Black and non-white people because they would be “by nature” inferior.

On the other hand, non-wealthy conservative Christians are invited into this alliance because they have plenty of votes. Conservative Christian groups are not necessarily in favor of supremacist rhetoric or neoliberal values.

Many are against gay people and policies of social inclusion for them because they believe that these sexual and family practices are against the laws of God. That is, the reason for exclusion is moral, which means that these people can change their behavior; whereas the ultimate criterion of neoliberals and fascists is metaphysical.

By rethinking biblical and theological teachings — for example, that God does not distinguish between heterosexuals and homosexuals because he loves everyone and that the criterion of sexual ethics is not religious law, but rather, as Jesus taught, relationships of love and responsibility toward partners and toward people who suffer, especially the poor.

Culturally conservative Christian people and communities (for example, those with traditional rites) can join a “multitude” of people and groups who, in the name of religious faith or humanistic values, fight for socio-environmental justice and the principle of equality of all people.

This is a translated and edited version of the column that first appeared on Religion Digital and has been republished with permission from Global Catholic.