Hell, this could easily mutate into a word game. What does 'good' mean here? All that's really been done is add another step to the process. To discriminate on something, you just need to make the argument that it's not good, instead of not allowed.
It's this exact thing that makes me very skeptical, actually, and inclined to see how and if Pope Francis does back this up. The definition of "good."
But I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater, to use
an idoimatic expression, before the bath is even done. I'd like to see if anything beneficial can come of this in a longer term rather than disparage it as PR, but that is merely my view on the matter. I respect your opinion, however, and your right to have it; it's possible that this won't make a difference at all. I'd rather wait and see if it does. And hope that it encourages the idea that non-religious individuals and those ascribing to other faiths are capable of being moral people.
If it doesn't, though, I will be heinously depressed.
EDIT: Bah. "Colloquialism" was definitely not the right word.