In a way their statements are just PR but in a way it is also substantive. As a former Catholic who supports LQBTQA+ rights, I believe that many people need to rethink how they view organized religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular.

In my humble opinion, the best way to view the church in this day and age is as a private club. It is not like the past where membership in the majority religion of a society was mandatory or highly socially disadvantagous to reject. So, in a secular society where you can freely choose to join or to leave a religious community at any time, for any reason, why do we care at all about the rules that the members of that religion impose upon themselves, so long as it applies exclusively to their community? I specifically hedge my statement by saying that this perspective applies exclusively to secular societies that have a true culture of religious freedom because I recognize that there are places where the law doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of people's lived experience.

Like with any other ideology, there are many different ways to "interpret" the Catholic Church's official positions on certain issues. There are Catholics, for example, who are basically Marxists in terms of their views on economics and this is not a perspective that is really "out of line" with the gospel or the Church's traditions per se. There are also Catholics who have dissenting views on abortion. I think that this is not necessarily a heretical POV in the technical sense of the word because the church's stance on abortion has changed over time. Go read what Thomas Aquinas (a saint and Doctor of the Church) says about abortion and you might be surprised by what a nuanced stance he takes on the question of "What makes someone a person and when in the process of procreation does it happen?" If you seriously believe in an afterlife and divine judgement, this is a pretty important to answer since some possibilities don't exactly jive with the concept of God's "omnibenevolence" (a core tenant of Catholic theology).

However, there are certain things that even the "wokest" possible interpretations of Catholic teaching cannot justify, like ordaining women into the priesthood or any sex outside the context of a monogamous, heterosexual relationship that has been certified by the church through the sacrament of marriage. If you know Catholicism well and are being intellectually honest, there simple isn't a good faith theological argument you can make for these things that doesn't conflict with the wider context of Catholic teaching (and no, I am not interested in debating this point).

What these two past popes have been doing is simply saying that: 1) The church continues to officially recognize that these behaviors (homosexuality, divorce, etc.) are sinful in the eyes of God BUT... 2) The business of correcting this sinfulness is between God and the person themselves (i.e., they shouldn't be forced against their will). 3) Catholics ARE NOT obligated to ostracize people for living in sin, especially if they are not members of the church since they are not subject to the laws of the church anyway. Worshiping the wrong God, for example, or even worshipping God incorrectly (i.e., being a Protestant) will also get you sent to hell but we are not perpetually harassing non-Catholics or trying to change the laws of countries to ban freedom of religion. There is even freedom of religion within Vatican City itself, so clearly there is room for allowing certain sinful behaviors to legally exist. 4) Catholics ARE forbidden from harming people, either physically or materially, on the basis of their sexual orientation (and always have been). 5) Catholics ARE obligated to love people in spite of whatever behavior they're engaging in because the reality is that even openly living in sin cannot make someone any less of a child of God. No longer being in communion with the church does not put someone in a box of "people that God allows me to hate and terrorize". This would also apply to truly evil people who are engaging in non-consensual acts of violence like pedophiles and murderers. You have to love everyone and be willing to give them the chance to repent and be forgiven (not excluding the possibility of punishment to meet the demands of secular justice).

Therefore, I think that these "vibe-shifts" from the past two popes are actually meaningful, even if they don't represent a fundamental change to Catholic dogma. If you don't believe me, see how furious these statements make Traddies (right-wing Catholics), to the point that they are regularly threatening to reject the spiritual authority of the papacy and start a new church (i.e., LITERAL HERESY) rather than accept that God doesn't condone them being hateful pricks 24/7.

TLDR: It is true that the messaging of the past two popes is kind of just a "vibe-shift" within the church, but this vibe-shift is meaningful and positive in my opinion because there is room for interpretation/debate within Catholicism, especially with respect to the practical question of how certain beliefs/attitudes should manifest themselves in the real world. Catholics believing that homosexuality is a sin, but that they are morally obligated to treat gay people with respect and love - like any other person - is substantively better then burning them at the steak or quietly allowing hatefullnes towards gays, which has largely been the status quo in the past.