Pope Francis blesses the marriage certificate of a U.S. couple during his general audience in Paul VI hall at the Vatican Dec. 14, 2016. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)
… and I think Pope Francis was right to make that observation, which in turn means, yes, I think that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith muffed the distinction between “unions” and “marriage” back in 2003 when it published its otherwise insightful “Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons”{1}. I argued that ‘same-sex marriage’ and ‘same-sex unions’ were distinguishable phenomena, and that CDF was wrong to require Catholics to oppose legal recognition of ‘same-sex unions’ with the same non-negotiable vigor as Catholics must reject legal recognition of ‘same-sex marriage’, in an essay penned more than two years ago but which, along with essays by many others, is still making its slow way through the world of printed book production. Grrr.
Anyway, in light of the pope’s too short but substantively sound observation—and even though political events since 2003, not to mention legal events such as Obergefell in 2015, might have mooted the question—it seems useful to set out why, in my view, CDF’s 2003 statement unintentionally blunted some arguments that Catholics could have, just maybe, used to deflect some of the social and cultural problems arising in the wake of “same-sex marriage”. Condensing some ideas from that unpublished essay and expanding others, I argue thus:
In the course of faithfully setting out Church teaching (indeed, infallible Church teaching, likely divinely revealed infallible Church teaching) that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman, CDF, probably to underscore rhetorically the utter impossibility of marriage existing between two persons of the same sex, never uses the term “same-sex marriage” (even in quotation marks, as is my convention) to describe such unions and instead refers exclusively to “homosexual unions”, or close paraphrases, as something to be resolutely opposed by Catholics. That’s precisely the problem for, while every marriage is a union, not every union is a marriage.
We need to make several points.
1. Human beings exist in or enter into an infinite variety of unions, some biologically determined such as parent-child or siblings, some casual such as friendship or tennis teammates, some legally-sanctioned such as co-owners of businesses or co-signers for loans, some legally-regulated such as physician-patient or teacher-student, and so on and so on, including, in this vast array of unions between people, one and only one union that is motived by friendship, based on biology, and sanctioned-by and regulated-by law (customary, civil, and/or canonical), namely, that union called marriage. In other words, “union” means a million things but “marriage” means only one, and, in defending “marriage” in particular, it is dangerous to make certain assertions about unions in general.
Virtually every union entered into by human beings can be abused: a lawyer might take on a client not so as to advise the client toward legality but so as to hide his own crimes behind an immunity; a young woman might marry an elderly man not so as to aid him in his declining years but so as to grab a slice of his fortune away from his children; two homosexual men might form a business partnership not so as to serve the community with better car repairs but so as to market sex toys, but in none of these cases does abuse of the union result in a cry that attorney-client privilege should be abolished, or that weddings between gold-diggers and old fools should not be recognized, or that business contracts between homosexual men should be void at law. Moral theology has much to say about such activities, but law has much, much less to say about them.
2. If the state were considering whether, under a proposed “Significant Other” law, one citizen could designate another citizen as his or her “significant other”, allowing those two people to share their earnings, have access to each other’s personal records, be covered under each other’s insurance, inherit a preferential portion of the other’s estate, and so on, such a bill should be debated on the same grounds as would any other bill, mostly, on the degree to which it advances the common good. The disadvantages of such a bill might well outweigh the advantages, whereupon it would be amended or scrapped.
But for ecclesiastical authority to say that, because such legislation would indeed make possible, among other things, civil recognition and protection of same-sex couples in terms perhaps identical to the civil recognition and protection accorded married couples, such bills must be opposed by Catholics without exception, is to read “significant other” as a “spouse” and to assume civilly-contractually-related people are connubially-contractually-related people. Which they are not.
3. Everyone would agree, I trust, that what we label things sometimes makes no difference, but that other times what we call them makes a huge difference.
For example, whether we call the deliberate killing of pre-born baby a “saline acid feticide” or the “constitutionally protected termination of an unwanted pregnancy” does not change the reality that a pre-born human baby is being deliberately killed. The label does not change the reality. But sometimes changing the words associated with an action does make a difference, thusly:
Ancient Christians, offered the choice between burning incense to honor the divine Augustus or dying a slow painful death, had to choose the slow painful death if they wanted to remain faithful to the true God. But suppose, instead of burning incense to honor Caesar as a god, ancient Christians could have burned incense to honor him as an emperor. Christians could have burned incense in such cases, as casually as we set ablaze waxen wicks atop a frosted cake to honor a man’s birthday, without fear of scandalizing others. No one thinks the birthday boy is God, and only if some authority begins implying that so-and-so really is a god (think North Korea), and that burning candles in his honor is to acknowledge him as a god, does the matter take on additional meaning. Here, the labels attached to the action domake a huge difference.
Likewise, saying that two persons of the same sex are in a legally-recognized union, whatever else one says about that relationship, isnot tantamount to saying that those two persons are married for the simple reason that not every union—even long-term, consensual, sexually-active, economically stable, unions—is a marriage civilly or canonically.
Bringing these points together.
The rejection of “same-sex unions” that CDF set out expressly and repeatedly in 2003 was phrased in the same absolute terms with which “same-sex marriage” should be, and must be (and I think, in CDF’s mind, was being), rejected by conscientious Catholics, implying that the opposition of faithful Catholics to the civil recognition of “same-sex unions” is categorically, and thus morally, indistinguishable from the opposition that they should offer to the civil recognition of “same-sex marriage“. I think this was a logical and a political mistake. One can imagine many civil proposals to accord legal protections to same-sex couples qua couples that, even without claiming for such couples the designation of “spouses”, a Catholic would be bound to oppose. But such opposition could be grounded only in factors made evident upon reading the specific proposal, and not simply because the proposal protected couples of the same sex. It is quite possible, logically and morally, that such a proposal could pass moral muster (but fail in prudence, and so need rejecting), or that it could pass moral muster and suffice as a prudential matter, and so warrant support by, or at least indifference from, Catholics. CDF should not have written otherwise and Francis is right, in my view, to make his point.
That said, to be clear, no proposal whatsoever whereby a Catholic is legally required to recognize as married two persons of the same sex can ever be acceptable, and an individual Catholic’s endorsement of “same-sex marriage” must be avoided as being, among other things, a violation of Church teaching (1983 CIC 750 § 2 and 1371 n. 1) and probably as a heresy strictly speaking (1983 CIC 750 § 1, 751, and 1364).
Again, I suspect that’s what CDF meant; but that’s not what CDF said. And that’s a problem.
+ + +
{1} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, doc. “Diverse questioni” [Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons] (31 iul. 2003), Communicationes 35 (2003) 214-223, Eng. trans. Origins 33/11 (14 aug 2003) 177, 179-182. Additional background in this area is available in Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, doc. “Recentemente” [Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons] (23 iul 1992), Enchiridion Vaticanum 13 (1995) 992-997, Eng. trans. Origins22/10 (6 aug 1992) 173, 175-177.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Edward N. Peters, JD, JCD has doctoral degrees in canon and common law. Since 2005 he has held the Edmund Cardinal Szoka Chair at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. His personal blog on canon law issues in the news may be accessed at the "In the Light of the Law" site.
Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo, president of the Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar. / Credit: François-Régis Salefran CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED
ACI Prensa Staff, Jan 22, 2024 / 18:00 pm (CNA).
Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo, president o… […]
Pope Francis celebrates Mass at the Granaries in Floriana, Malta, April 3, 2022. / Vatican Media.
Floriana, Malta, Apr 3, 2022 / 03:20 am (CNA).
Pope Francis said in Malta on Sunday that the word “irredeemable” does not exist for God, whose mer… […]
Pope Francis at the general audience in St. Peter’s Square, Oct. 5, 2016. / Credit: Daniel Ibanez/CNA
CNA Staff, Mar 13, 2024 / 12:00 pm (CNA).
March 13 marks the anniversary of the election of Pope Francis as the 266th successor of St. Peter. Here is a timeline of key events during his papacy:
2013
March 13 — About two weeks after Pope Benedict XVI steps down from the papacy, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio is elected pope. He takes the papal name Francis in honor of St. Francis of Assisi and proclaims from the central balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica: “Let us begin this journey, the bishop and people, this journey of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity over all the Churches, a journey of brotherhood in love, of mutual trust. Let us always pray for one another.”
March 14 — The day after he begins his pontificate, Pope Francis returns to his hotel to personally pay his hotel bill and collect his luggage.
July 8 — Pope Francis visits Italy’s island of Lampedusa and meets with a group of 50 migrants, most of whom are young men from Somalia and Eritrea. The island, which is about 200 miles off the coast of Tunisia, is a common entry point for migrants who flee parts of Africa and the Middle East to enter Europe. This is the pope’s first pastoral visit outside of Rome and sets the stage for making reaching out to the peripheries a significant focus.
Pope Francis gives the Wednesday general audience in St. Peter’s Square on Oct. 2, 2013. Elise Harris/CNA.
July 23-28 — Pope Francis visits Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to participate in World Youth Day 2013. More than 3 million people from around the world attend the event.
July 29 — On the return flight from Brazil, Pope Francis gives his first papal news conference and sparks controversy by saying “if a person is gay and seeks God and has goodwill, who am I to judge?” The phrase is prompted by a reporter asking the pope a question about priests who have homosexual attraction.
Nov. 24 — Pope Francis publishes his first apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel). The document illustrates the pope’s vision for how to approach evangelization in the modern world.
2014
Feb. 22 — Pope Francis holds his first papal consistory to appoint 19 new cardinals, including ones from countries in the developing world that have never previously been represented in the College of Cardinals, such as Haiti.
March 22 — Pope Francis creates the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. The commission works to protect the dignity of minors and vulnerable adults, such as the victims of sexual abuse.
Pope Francis greets pilgrims during his general audience on Nov. 29, 2014. Bohumil Petrik/CNA.
Oct. 5 — The Synod on the Family begins. The bishops discuss a variety of concerns, including single-parent homes, cohabitation, homosexual adoption of children, and interreligious marriages.
Dec. 6 — After facing some pushback for his efforts to reform the Roman Curia, Pope Francis discusses his opinion in an interview with La Nacion, an Argentine news outlet: “Resistance is now evident. And that is a good sign for me, getting the resistance out into the open, no stealthy mumbling when there is disagreement. It’s healthy to get things out into the open, it’s very healthy.”
2015
Jan. 18 — To conclude a trip to Asia, Pope Francis celebrates Mass in Manila, Philippines. Approximately 6 million to 7 million people attend the record-setting Mass, despite heavy rain.
March 23 — Pope Francis visits Naples, Italy, to show the Church’s commitment to helping the fight against corruption and organized crime in the city.
May 24 — To emphasize the Church’s mission to combat global warming and care for the environment, Pope Francis publishes the encyclical Laudato Si’, which urges people to take care of the environment and encourages political action to address climate problems.
Pope Francis at a Wednesday general audience in St. Peter’s Square on June 17, 2015. Bohumil Petrik.
Sept. 19-22 — Pope Francis visits Cuba and meets with Fidel Castro in the first papal visit to the country since Pope John Paul II in 1998. During his homily, Francis discusses the dignity of the human person: “Being a Christian entails promoting the dignity of our brothers and sisters, fighting for it, living for it.”
Sept. 22-27 — After departing from Cuba, Pope Francis makes his first papal visit to the United States. In Washington, D.C., he speaks to a joint session of Congress, in which he urges lawmakers to work toward promoting the common good, and canonizes the Franciscan missionary St. Junípero Serra. He also attends the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia, which focuses on celebrating the gift of the family.
Pope Francis speaks to the U.S. Congress in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 24, 2015. . L’Osservatore Romano.
Oct. 4 — Pope Francis begins the second Synod on the Family to address issues within the modern family, such as single-parent homes, cohabitation, poverty, and abuse.
Oct. 18 — The pope canonizes St. Louis Martin and St. Marie-Azélie “Zelie” Guérin. The married couple were parents to five nuns, including St. Therese of Lisieux. They are the first married couple to be canonized together.
Dec. 8 — Pope Francis’ Jubilee Year of Mercy begins. The year focuses on God’s mercy and forgiveness and people’s redemption from sin. The pope delegates certain priests in each diocese to be Missionaries of Mercy who have the authority to forgive sins that are usually reserved for the Holy See.
2016
March 19 — Pope Francis publishes the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which discusses a wide variety of issues facing the modern family based on discussions from the two synods on the family. The pope garners significant controversy from within the Church for comments he makes in Chapter 8 about Communion for the divorced and remarried.
April 16 — After visiting refugees on the Greek island of Lesbos, Pope Francis allows three Muslim refugee families to join him on his flight back to Rome. He says the move was not a political statement.
Pope Francis at the General Audience in St. Peter’s Square, Feb. 24, 2016. Daniel Ibanez/CNA.
July 26-31 — Pope Francis visits Krakow, Poland, as part of the World Youth Day festivities. About 3 million young Catholic pilgrims from around the world attend.
Sept. 4 — The pope canonizes St. Teresa of Calcutta, who is also known as Mother Teresa. The saint, a nun from Albania, dedicated her life to missionary and charity work, primarily in India.
Sept. 30-Oct. 2 — Pope Francis visits Georgia and Azerbaijan on his 16th trip outside of Rome since the start of his papacy. His trip focuses on Catholic relations with Orthodox Christians and Muslims.
Oct. 4 — Pope Francis makes a surprise visit to Amatrice, Italy, to pray for the victims of an earthquake in central Italy that killed nearly 300 people.
2017
May 12-13 — In another papal trip, Francis travels to Fatima, Portugal, to visit the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima. May 13 marks the 100th anniversary of the first Marian apparition to three children in the city.
July 11 — Pope Francis adds another category of Christian life suitable for the consideration of sainthood: “offering of life.” The category is distinct from martyrdom, which only applies to someone who is killed for his or her faith. The new category applies to those who died prematurely through an offering of their life to God and neighbor.
Pope Francis greets a participant in the World Day of the Poor in Rome, Nov. 16, 2017. L’Osservatore Romano.
Nov. 19 — On the first-ever World Day of the Poor, Pope Francis eats lunch with 4,000 poor and people in need in Rome.
Nov. 27-Dec. 2 — In another trip to Asia, Pope Francis travels to Myanmar and Bangladesh. He visits landmarks and meets with government officials, Catholic clergy, and Buddhist monks. He also preaches the Gospel and promotes peace in the region.
2018
Jan. 15-21 — The pope takes another trip to Latin America, this time visiting Chile and Peru. The pontiff meets with government officials and members of the clergy while urging the faithful to remain close to the clergy and reject secularism. The Chilean visit leads to controversy over Chilean clergy sex abuse scandals.
Aug. 2 — The Vatican formally revises No. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which concerns the death penalty. The previous text suggested the death penalty could be permissible in certain circumstances, but the revision states that the death penalty is “inadmissible.”
Aug. 25 — Archbishop Carlo Viganò, former papal nuncio to the United States, publishes an 11-page letter calling for the resignation of Pope Francis and accusing him and other Vatican officials of covering up sexual abuse including allegations against former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. The pope initially does not directly respond to the letter, but nine months after its publication he denies having prior knowledge about McCarrick’s conduct.
Aug. 25-26 — Pope Francis visits Dublin, Ireland, to attend the World Meeting of Families. The theme is “the Gospel of family, joy for the world.”
Pope Francis at the 2018 World Meeting of Families in Ireland. Daniel Ibanez/CNA.
Oct. 3-28 — The Synod on Young People, the Faith, and Vocational Discernment takes place. The synod focuses on best practices to teach the faith to young people and to help them discern God’s will.
2019
Jan. 22-27 — The third World Youth Day during Pope Francis’ pontificate takes place during these six days in Panama City, Panama. Young Catholics from around the world gather for the event, with approximately 3 million people in attendance.
Feb. 4 — Pope Francis signs a joint document in with Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand imam of Al-Azhar, in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, titled the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together.” The document focuses on people of different faiths uniting together to live peacefully and advance a culture of mutual respect.
Pope Francis and Ahmed el-Tayeb, grand imam of al-Azhar, signed a joint declaration on human fraternity during an interreligious meeting in Abu Dhabi, UAE, Feb. 4, 2019. Vatican Media.
Feb. 21-24 — The Meeting on the Protection of Minors in the Church, which is labeled the Vatican Sexual Abuse Summit, takes place. The meeting focuses on sexual abuse scandals in the Church and emphasizes responsibility, accountability, and transparency.
Oct. 6-27 — The Church holds the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon region, which is also known as the Amazon Synod. The synod is meant to present ways in which the Church can better evangelize the Amazon region but leads to controversy when carved images of a pregnant Amazonian woman, referred to by the pope as Pachamama, are used in several events and displayed in a basilica near the Vatican.
Oct. 13 — St. John Henry Newman, an Anglican convert to Catholicism and a cardinal, is canonized by Pope Francis. Newman’s writings inspired Catholic student associations at nonreligious colleges and universities in the United States and other countries.
2020
March 15 — Pope Francis takes a walking pilgrimage in Rome to the chapel of the crucifix and prays for an end to the COVID-19 pandemic. The crucifix was carried through Rome during the plague of 1522.
March 27 — Pope Francis gives an extraordinary “urbi et orbi” blessing in an empty and rain-covered St. Peter’s Square, praying for the world during the coronavirus pandemic.
Pope Francis venerates the miraculous crucifix of San Marcello al Corso in St. Peter’s Square during his Urbi et Orbi blessing, March 27, 2020. Vatican Media.
2021
March 5-8 — In his first papal trip since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Pope Francis becomes the first pope to visit Iraq. On his trip, he signs a joint statement with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani condemning extremism and promoting peace.
July 3 — Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu, who was elevated to the College of Cardinals by Pope Francis, is indicted in a Vatican court for embezzlement, money laundering, and other crimes. The pope gives approval for the indictment.
July 4 — Pope Francis undergoes colon surgery for diverticulitis, a common condition in older people. The Vatican releases a statement that assures the pope “reacted well” to the surgery. Francis is released from the hospital after 10 days.
July 16 — Pope Francis issues a motu proprio titled Traditionis Custodes. The document imposes heavy restrictions on the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass.
Dec. 2-6 — The pope travels to Cyprus and Greece. The trip includes another visit to the Greek island of Lesbos to meet with migrants.
Pope Francis greets His Beatitude Ieronymos II in Athens, Greece on Dec. 5, 2021. Vatican Media
2022
Jan. 11 — Pope Francis makes a surprise visit to a record store in Rome called StereoSound. The pope, who has an affinity for classical music, blesses the newly renovated store.
March 19 — The pope promulgates Praedicate Evangelium, which reforms the Roman Curia. The reforms emphasize evangelization and establish more opportunities for the laity to be in leadership positions.
May 5 — Pope Francis is seen in a wheelchair for the first time in public and begins to use one more frequently. The pope has been suffering from knee problems for months.
Pope Francis greeted the crowd in a wheelchair at the end of his general audience on Aug. 3, 2022. Daniel Ibanez/CNA
July 24-30 — In his first papal visit to Canada, Pope Francis apologizes for the harsh treatment of the indigenous Canadians, saying many Christians and members of the Catholic Church were complicit.
2023
Jan. 31-Feb. 5 — Pope Francis travels to the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan. During his visit, the pope condemns political violence in the countries and promotes peace. He also participates in an ecumenical prayer service with Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and Moderator of the Church of Scotland Iain Greenshields.
Pope Francis greets a young boy a Mass in Juba, South Sudan on Feb. 5, 2023. Vatican Media
March 29-April 1 — Pope Francis is hospitalized for a respiratory infection. During his stay at Rome’s Gemelli Hospital, he visits the pediatric cancer ward and baptizes a newborn baby.
April 5 — The pope appears in the Disney documentary “The Pope: Answers,” which is in Spanish, answering six “hot-button” issues from members of Gen Z from various backgrounds. The group discusses immigration, depression, abortion, clergy sexual and psychological abuse, transgenderism, pornography, and loss of faith.
April 28-30 — Pope Francis visits Hungary to meet with government officials, civil society members, bishops, priests, seminarians, Jesuits, consecrated men and women, and pastoral workers. He celebrates Mass on the final day of the trip in Kossuth Lajos Square.
Pope Francis stands on an altar erected outside the Parliament Building in Budapest’s Kossuth Lajos’ Square during a public outdoor Mass on April 30, 2023. Vatican Media
June 7 — The Vatican announces that Pope Francis will undergo abdominal surgery that afternoon under general anesthesia due to a hernia that is causing painful, recurring, and worsening symptoms. In his general audience that morning before the surgery, Francis says he intends to publish an apostolic letter on St. Thérèse of Lisieux, “patroness of the missions,” to mark the 150th anniversary of her birth.
June 15 — After successful surgery and a week of recovery, Pope Francis is released from Gemelli Hospital.
Aug. 2-6 — Pope Francis travels to Lisbon, Portugal, for World Youth Day 2023, taking place from Aug. 1-6. He meets with Church and civil leaders ahead of presiding at the welcoming Mass and Stations of the Cross. He also hears the confessions of several pilgrims. On Aug. 5, he visits the Shrine of Our Lady of Fátima, where he prays the rosary with young people with disabilities. That evening he presides over the vigil and on Sunday, Aug. 6, he celebrates the closing Mass, where he urges the 1.5 million young people present to “be not afraid,” echoing the words of the founder of World Youth Days, St. John Paul II.
Pope Francis waves at the crowd of 1.5 million people who attended the closing Mass of World Youth Day 2023 in Lisbon, Portugal on Aug. 6, 2023. Vatican Media.
Aug. 31-Sept. 4 — Pope Francis travels to Mongolia, the world’s most sparsely populated sovereign country. The trip makes Francis the first pope to visit the Asian country that shares a 2,880-mile border with China, its most significant economic partner. Mongolia has a population of about 1,300 Catholics in a country of more than 3 million people.
Pope Francis meets with local priests and religious of Mongolia, which includes only 25 priests (19 religious and six diocesan), 33 women religious, and one bishop — Cardinal Giorgio Marengo — in Ulaanbaatar’s Cathedral of Sts. Peter and Paul on Sept. 2, 2023. Credit: Vatican Media
Sept. 22-23 — On a two-day trip to Marseille, France, Pope Francis meets with local civil and religious leaders and participates in the Mediterranean Encounter, a gathering of some 120 young people of various creeds with bishops from 30 countries.
Pope Francis asks for a moment of silence at a memorial dedicated to sailors and migrants lost at sea on the first of a two-day visit to Marseille, France, Sept. 22, 2023. A Camargue cross, which comes from the Camargue area of France, represents the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. The three tridents represent faith, the anchor represents hope, and the heart represents charity. Credit: Daniel Ibañez/CNA
Oct. 4-29 — The Vatican hosts the first of two monthlong global assemblies of the Synod on Synodality, initiated by Pope Francis in 2021 to enhance the communion, participation, and mission of the Church. Pope Francis celebrates the closing Mass of the synod at St. Peter’s Basilica on Oct. 29. The second and final global assembly will take place at the Vatican in October 2024.
Pope Francis at the Synod on Synodality’s closing Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica on Oct. 29, 2023. Vatican Media
Nov. 25 — Pope Francis visits the hospital briefly for precautionary testing after coming down with the flu earlier in the day. Although he still participates in scheduled activities, other officials read his prepared remarks. The Vatican on Nov. 28 cancels the pope’s planned Dec. 1–3 trip to Dubai for the COP28 climate conference, where he was scheduled to deliver a speech, due to his illness.
Dec. 18 — The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issues the declaration Fiducia Supplicans, which authorizes nonliturgical blessings for same-sex couples and couples in “irregular situations.” Various bishops from around the world voice both support for and criticism of the document.
2024
Jan. 4 — Amid widespread backlash to Fiducia Supplicans, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, publishes a five-page press release that refers to Fiducia Supplicans as “perennial doctrine” and underlines that pastoral blessings of couples in irregular situations should not be “an endorsement of the life led by those who request them.”
Jan. 14 — Pope Francis for the first time responds publicly to questions about Fiducia Supplicans in an interview on an Italian television show. The pope underlines that “the Lord blesses everyone” and that a blessing is an invitation to enter into a conversation “to see what the road is that the Lord proposes to them.”
Feb. 11 — In a ceremony attended by Argentine president Javier Milei, Pope Francis canonizes María Antonia of St. Joseph — known affectionately in the pope’s home country as “Mama Antula” — in a Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica. The president and the former archbishop of Buenos Aires embrace after the ceremony. Pope Francis, who has not returned to his homeland since becoming pope in 2013, has said he wants to visit Argentina in the second half of this year.
Pope Francis meets with Argentina President Javier Milei in a private audience on Feb. 12, 2024, at the Vatican. Credit: Vatican Media
Feb. 28 — After canceling audiences the previous Saturday and having an aide read his prepared remarks at his Wednesday audience due to a “mild flu,” Pope Francis visits the hospital for diagnostic tests but returns to the Vatican afterward.
March 2 — Despite having an aide read his speech “because of bronchitis,” the pope presides over the inauguration of the 95th Judicial Year of the Vatican City State and maintains a full schedule.
March 13 — Pope Francis celebrates 11 years as Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.
The ancients probably only burned incense to sacred things. To gods, perhaps to the ancestors, depending on the cult etc. To burn incense to the emperor probably put the emperor on a plane with the gods, so I question whether a Christian could have done such a thing. As I understand it, burning incense to normal everyday things was not done, and one certainly did not burn incense to Roman senators, etc.
I agree that it depends on the particular law that would allow some benefits to homosexuals – a law that merely allows a homosexual to appoint some other person as the person who had legal control of their property, etc would not be a problem. But the fact of the matter is that all of that was available, at a pretty nominal fee, via private agreement. So there never was any real problem with visiting in the hospital, etc. All of that was a set of lies (we repeatedly see them lying all the time) designed to make a false argument for civil unions. But on the whole, the Civil union laws were simply the run up to the gay marriage laws. And civil union laws tended to give them the rights of married couples, but simply did not give them the name. If memory serves, this was the case in Obergefell.
I suspect the CDF used the generic term “unions” so as to cover all the variations of civil unions. What they probably wanted to avoid is states claiming they were in compliance merely by not calling them “marriages”. And in fact, many civil union laws did give them all the benefits of marriage,except the name.
Add to this the fact that the CDF directive had to cover every conceivable legal formulation of marriage in the world, and the varying legal forms that those countries might cast “civil unions” as, and they faced a great challenge. How about if an Igbo tribesman decides to take on another man as his fifth wife, yet not give him the full rights of marriage, etc etc. You get my point, even if the example is not right on.
I agree that there might be a lesser species of legislation that gives legal rights that homosexuals can take advantage of to arrange their property etc rights. But those things were not coming up for votes in 2003, Clear civil union laws were, and those laws gave almost full recognition as if they were married, so I doubt that we can fault the CDF much.
Always appreciate Edward Peters’ precision. The technical distinctions he makes here need to be part of every Catholic’s apologetic material on the subject of same-sex liaisons.
Still, the CDF, in my view, wasn’t wrong. While every human can and does enter into many types of “unions” from familial to investment/business, we do not understand belonging to those unions as a sexual affiliation. No one thinks that the Women’s Christian Temperance a Union is a group of Christian lesbians. In the context noted by CDF and the popular culture, everyone fully understands what the content of that Same-Sex Union is–sexual activity. Making a distinction between “marriage” and “union” where Union clearly intends sexual activity, appears to the average person as nothing more than a fig leaf. And, it risks being viewed as a Catholic escape clause for homosexual liaisons, much as annulments are perceived (erroneously) as the Catholic divorce.
It seems to me that such distinctions, while technical (though, wink, wink– everybody knows what’s really happening) also denigrates the seriousness with which society should treat marriage. Don’t we invite a charge of hypocrisy to pretend, based on a technicality (Union VS. Marriage), that any other sexual union is the civil equivent of marriage? The distinction outlined above implies that the CDF, the Church, can approve of “unions” for civil purposes, as a “work-around” for a culture gone rogue. How can The Church tacitly accept sexual unions between homosexual persons as a codified civil good? As Christians we should still have to oppose such relationships. To make a clumsy comparison, yes, Christians could *honor* Augustus as Emperor without worshipping a false God, but Christians cannot honor homosexual activity with legal protections because it is intrinsically sinful.
To propose a category such as “domestic partnership” comes closer to a civil /legal recognition of certain goals, such as shared ownership with right to inherit, shared medical responsibilities, insurance, and so forth. This “domestic partnership” applies to two widowed sisters sharing a domicile, an uncle and the nephew who cares for his elderly relative, or two friends. In short, a domestic partnership” is a legal ( not sexual) arrangement between any two persons for reasons outlined above. It does not imply a sexual relationship, because it confines the partnership to shared property and responsibilities irrespective of being heterosexual or homosexual. If homosexual persons agree to share property and responsibilities, sexual activity, if any, within that partnership is not the jurisdiction of the law or the Church. But it also isn’t a civil (or ecclesiastical !) approval of an immoral act. And it certainly isn’t understood as a aberrant relationship that mimics marriage.
If I understand this author correctly, he is arguing that it is not wrong for Catholics to support benefits for two people simply by reason of the fact that the “couple” is “united” in an activity that Western Civilization judged to be repugnant and illegal until the 1960s. Why should we vote any “legal protections” to people engaged in anti-social, destructive, immoral behavior? The “logic” in this article is simply bizarre. Is this more of the “Francis effect” ?
You surely don’t know how silly your response is Mr. Olson, to a valid criticism for a grotesquely ridiculous piece of sophistry, more of what is destroying the entire moral witness of the Church. The silliest aspect of the article involves the assumption that homosexuals have generally desired unions independent of an exercise of in-your-face cultural grandstanding seeking validation of personal evil. Most homosexuals still prefer promiscuous evil.
I most often agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Peters but on this matter I most emphatically do not. When civil unions are discussed in the context of LGBT issues it is for the purpose of recognizing them, not as akin to other business or partner relationships, but as one which solemnizes and recognizes these relationships AS gay or lesbian. It is “marriage light” which will of its nature lead to agitation for rights of adoption of children in clear violation of church teaching, as well as other more benign matters such as survivorship benefits and the like. Such recognition is presented so as to regularize an inherently sinful relationship, one in which sexual relations presumably will occur, again in violation of church teaching.
Legitimizing a gay/lesbian civil union is as morally problematic as legitimizing a bigamous or adulterous union. There is no sound reason for a faithful Catholic to do anything other than stand with Christ and His Church on the principles affirmed by the CDF in 2003, regardless of the inevitable hostile feedback from so many on the “progressive left” both inside and outside the Church.
I think the 2003 CDF document is very clear to me. Marriage is always between a woman and a man for the Church, as should be for all Christians. Anything else such as civil unions between people of the same sex aren’t recognized by the Church as being any sort of marriage., thus the use of “civil unions” seems to me to be right even if secular laws may call otherwise. Here is the Conclusion of the aforementioned document by the CDF:
CONCLUSION
11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.
Thanks for the comments, folks. It has long been my happy cross to write more clearly than most people read. Virtually all of the objections above arise from one’s not having read what I actually wrote or from (unawares?) altering the fact patterns under discussion into something that I, too, would not have agreed with. Best, edp.
Well, there is no cross quite as heavy as superiority, I guess. But you might wish to revisit the idea that your writing exhibits supreme clarity. If one of my students turned in a paper this convoluted, it would merit a C+ at best.
Dr Peters to take the argument a step further to my comment below, we assume because it is civil law union it is entirely differentiated from the moral law regarding marriage. Civil union in fact emulates marriage by assuming legal privilege common to marriage for two homosexuals living together. Whereas recognition of mutual consent of two adults is essentially different. There is no precedent, stare decisis in US history or in the Common Law of England for a legal description of same sex union provided privileges related to marriage. The State is in fact inventing a new legal description of union nowhere to be found in human history. Pope Francis when Archbishop of Buenos Aires sought to legitimatize civil union as a legal prerogative different from Church law. That in effect for a prelate is a form of approbation similar to his position as Pontiff. The CDF was correct in opposing same sex civil union precisely because the State by its recognition creates a new legal status with moral implication in an area outside its purview. A purview that belongs to the Church not the State. Consequently the result is now marriage as defined by the State between same sex couples. If that is entirely within the purview of the State then it appears Canon Law must recognize its legality.
Technically according to civil law the author is correct when he differentiates between same sex union and marriage. Legally the State has the right to acknowledge the right of same sex union between two consenting persons. The Puritan prescripts against homosexual practice is an example of Theocracy that the more rights conscience Royal Charter imposed to end theocracy in New England. The author suggests the CDF was wrong when it asked Catholics to oppose same sex union as a civil right. His argument is consists of comparison of the consenting union to the CDF idea that union implies marriage. Aside from what the author presumes and what Pope Francis presumes–in the order of morality as distinguished from Legality [I too believe that legally the State must recognize the right between two consenting individuals regardless of moral impropriety as was the case with the King’s implementation of the Royal Charter] the Church has not only the right but the obligation to oppose an intrinsically evil behavior regardless of the proprieties of civil law. Both the author of this article and Pope Francis the latter for his own agenda are wrong.
The State does not have the authority to coerce any person into affirming and/or recognizing the equality of sexual acts and sexual relationships.
Marriage, by its inherent nature, is restrictive to begin with, because not every couple has the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife, and thus be married to each other. Marriage cannot in essence be and not be, existing in relationship as husband and wife simultaneously. By removing one of the necessary requirements for a civil marriage to be valid, which is the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife, thus invalidating the validity of a valid civil marriage, while promoting marriage fraud and the sin of adultery, The Supreme Court has made it possible for every relationship to be declared a marriage, if one so desires, and thus made it possible for every one to receive special marital benefits, whether they have the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife or not.
The State does not have the right to invalidate every marriage that consists of a man and woman, who have the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife, or to promote adultery, or to declare, that any relationship, if one so desires, can be called marriage, now that, in order to be married, it is no longer necessary to have the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife.
Marriage is not discriminatory against men or women, because marriage consists of one man, and one woman, existing in relationship as husband and wife. Every man is free to choose a woman to be his wife, and every woman is free to choose a man to be her husband, as long as that particular man and woman have the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife.
There is no inherent Right to deny The Sanctity of the marital act, which is Life-affirming and Life-sustaining and can only be consummated between a man and woman united in marriage, as husband and wife. Only in a complementary relationship of Love, between a man and woman, united in marriage as husband and wife, can two become one body, one spirit, in Love, creating a new family.
It is not physically possible for two people of the same sex to form a sexual union, thus it is not possible for two people of the same-sex to be married to each other.
One should never underestimate the value of a Loving friendship, which, because it respects our inherent Dignity as a beloved son or daughter, serves for The Common Good.
I think what Bishop Paprocki said in an interview I conducted with him is very informative:
“In terms of the pressure being put on the Church as mentioned in that CDF document, I think is really what we are seeing happening very forcefully right now. Because the push for gay rights has always been incremental steps. It started for example with domestic partnerships. Even the terminology domestic partnerships and the argument: we just need that so I can visit my gay partner who is in the hospital, we need legal rights, domestic partnerships that was the first thing. Then it moved to civil unions and then it was ratcheted up to same-sex marriage. Well, they’ve achieved all that, in civil law, so the target for so long has been to get recognition in civil law, and now that’s been achieved. So in our country, civil law has recognized same-sex marriage. What they don’t have is moral approval. And the only place that can give them the approval is the Church. So I think that’s the next target here. In terms of putting pressure on the Church in order to give that kind of moral approval to say what you’re doing is morally acceptable.”
In other words – allow “civil unions” and you will soon have “gay marriages” and then begins the effort to sacramentalize those unions.
For what it is worth:
The ancients probably only burned incense to sacred things. To gods, perhaps to the ancestors, depending on the cult etc. To burn incense to the emperor probably put the emperor on a plane with the gods, so I question whether a Christian could have done such a thing. As I understand it, burning incense to normal everyday things was not done, and one certainly did not burn incense to Roman senators, etc.
I agree that it depends on the particular law that would allow some benefits to homosexuals – a law that merely allows a homosexual to appoint some other person as the person who had legal control of their property, etc would not be a problem. But the fact of the matter is that all of that was available, at a pretty nominal fee, via private agreement. So there never was any real problem with visiting in the hospital, etc. All of that was a set of lies (we repeatedly see them lying all the time) designed to make a false argument for civil unions. But on the whole, the Civil union laws were simply the run up to the gay marriage laws. And civil union laws tended to give them the rights of married couples, but simply did not give them the name. If memory serves, this was the case in Obergefell.
I suspect the CDF used the generic term “unions” so as to cover all the variations of civil unions. What they probably wanted to avoid is states claiming they were in compliance merely by not calling them “marriages”. And in fact, many civil union laws did give them all the benefits of marriage,except the name.
Add to this the fact that the CDF directive had to cover every conceivable legal formulation of marriage in the world, and the varying legal forms that those countries might cast “civil unions” as, and they faced a great challenge. How about if an Igbo tribesman decides to take on another man as his fifth wife, yet not give him the full rights of marriage, etc etc. You get my point, even if the example is not right on.
I agree that there might be a lesser species of legislation that gives legal rights that homosexuals can take advantage of to arrange their property etc rights. But those things were not coming up for votes in 2003, Clear civil union laws were, and those laws gave almost full recognition as if they were married, so I doubt that we can fault the CDF much.
Always appreciate Edward Peters’ precision. The technical distinctions he makes here need to be part of every Catholic’s apologetic material on the subject of same-sex liaisons.
Still, the CDF, in my view, wasn’t wrong. While every human can and does enter into many types of “unions” from familial to investment/business, we do not understand belonging to those unions as a sexual affiliation. No one thinks that the Women’s Christian Temperance a Union is a group of Christian lesbians. In the context noted by CDF and the popular culture, everyone fully understands what the content of that Same-Sex Union is–sexual activity. Making a distinction between “marriage” and “union” where Union clearly intends sexual activity, appears to the average person as nothing more than a fig leaf. And, it risks being viewed as a Catholic escape clause for homosexual liaisons, much as annulments are perceived (erroneously) as the Catholic divorce.
It seems to me that such distinctions, while technical (though, wink, wink– everybody knows what’s really happening) also denigrates the seriousness with which society should treat marriage. Don’t we invite a charge of hypocrisy to pretend, based on a technicality (Union VS. Marriage), that any other sexual union is the civil equivent of marriage? The distinction outlined above implies that the CDF, the Church, can approve of “unions” for civil purposes, as a “work-around” for a culture gone rogue. How can The Church tacitly accept sexual unions between homosexual persons as a codified civil good? As Christians we should still have to oppose such relationships. To make a clumsy comparison, yes, Christians could *honor* Augustus as Emperor without worshipping a false God, but Christians cannot honor homosexual activity with legal protections because it is intrinsically sinful.
To propose a category such as “domestic partnership” comes closer to a civil /legal recognition of certain goals, such as shared ownership with right to inherit, shared medical responsibilities, insurance, and so forth. This “domestic partnership” applies to two widowed sisters sharing a domicile, an uncle and the nephew who cares for his elderly relative, or two friends. In short, a domestic partnership” is a legal ( not sexual) arrangement between any two persons for reasons outlined above. It does not imply a sexual relationship, because it confines the partnership to shared property and responsibilities irrespective of being heterosexual or homosexual. If homosexual persons agree to share property and responsibilities, sexual activity, if any, within that partnership is not the jurisdiction of the law or the Church. But it also isn’t a civil (or ecclesiastical !) approval of an immoral act. And it certainly isn’t understood as a aberrant relationship that mimics marriage.
I very much appreciate your reflections here, Mj Anderson. Thank you!
If I understand this author correctly, he is arguing that it is not wrong for Catholics to support benefits for two people simply by reason of the fact that the “couple” is “united” in an activity that Western Civilization judged to be repugnant and illegal until the 1960s. Why should we vote any “legal protections” to people engaged in anti-social, destructive, immoral behavior? The “logic” in this article is simply bizarre. Is this more of the “Francis effect” ?
You surely don’t know how silly that remark is. Sigh.
Please expound. I am eager for clarification.
You surely don’t know how silly your response is Mr. Olson, to a valid criticism for a grotesquely ridiculous piece of sophistry, more of what is destroying the entire moral witness of the Church. The silliest aspect of the article involves the assumption that homosexuals have generally desired unions independent of an exercise of in-your-face cultural grandstanding seeking validation of personal evil. Most homosexuals still prefer promiscuous evil.
I think the church should be upholding a higher standard than just looking for a way to live with or allow sinful life style to become normalized.
I most often agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Peters but on this matter I most emphatically do not. When civil unions are discussed in the context of LGBT issues it is for the purpose of recognizing them, not as akin to other business or partner relationships, but as one which solemnizes and recognizes these relationships AS gay or lesbian. It is “marriage light” which will of its nature lead to agitation for rights of adoption of children in clear violation of church teaching, as well as other more benign matters such as survivorship benefits and the like. Such recognition is presented so as to regularize an inherently sinful relationship, one in which sexual relations presumably will occur, again in violation of church teaching.
Legitimizing a gay/lesbian civil union is as morally problematic as legitimizing a bigamous or adulterous union. There is no sound reason for a faithful Catholic to do anything other than stand with Christ and His Church on the principles affirmed by the CDF in 2003, regardless of the inevitable hostile feedback from so many on the “progressive left” both inside and outside the Church.
I think the 2003 CDF document is very clear to me. Marriage is always between a woman and a man for the Church, as should be for all Christians. Anything else such as civil unions between people of the same sex aren’t recognized by the Church as being any sort of marriage., thus the use of “civil unions” seems to me to be right even if secular laws may call otherwise. Here is the Conclusion of the aforementioned document by the CDF:
CONCLUSION
11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.
Thanks for the comments, folks. It has long been my happy cross to write more clearly than most people read. Virtually all of the objections above arise from one’s not having read what I actually wrote or from (unawares?) altering the fact patterns under discussion into something that I, too, would not have agreed with. Best, edp.
Well, there is no cross quite as heavy as superiority, I guess. But you might wish to revisit the idea that your writing exhibits supreme clarity. If one of my students turned in a paper this convoluted, it would merit a C+ at best.
Dr Peters to take the argument a step further to my comment below, we assume because it is civil law union it is entirely differentiated from the moral law regarding marriage. Civil union in fact emulates marriage by assuming legal privilege common to marriage for two homosexuals living together. Whereas recognition of mutual consent of two adults is essentially different. There is no precedent, stare decisis in US history or in the Common Law of England for a legal description of same sex union provided privileges related to marriage. The State is in fact inventing a new legal description of union nowhere to be found in human history. Pope Francis when Archbishop of Buenos Aires sought to legitimatize civil union as a legal prerogative different from Church law. That in effect for a prelate is a form of approbation similar to his position as Pontiff. The CDF was correct in opposing same sex civil union precisely because the State by its recognition creates a new legal status with moral implication in an area outside its purview. A purview that belongs to the Church not the State. Consequently the result is now marriage as defined by the State between same sex couples. If that is entirely within the purview of the State then it appears Canon Law must recognize its legality.
Technically according to civil law the author is correct when he differentiates between same sex union and marriage. Legally the State has the right to acknowledge the right of same sex union between two consenting persons. The Puritan prescripts against homosexual practice is an example of Theocracy that the more rights conscience Royal Charter imposed to end theocracy in New England. The author suggests the CDF was wrong when it asked Catholics to oppose same sex union as a civil right. His argument is consists of comparison of the consenting union to the CDF idea that union implies marriage. Aside from what the author presumes and what Pope Francis presumes–in the order of morality as distinguished from Legality [I too believe that legally the State must recognize the right between two consenting individuals regardless of moral impropriety as was the case with the King’s implementation of the Royal Charter] the Church has not only the right but the obligation to oppose an intrinsically evil behavior regardless of the proprieties of civil law. Both the author of this article and Pope Francis the latter for his own agenda are wrong.
The State does not have the authority to coerce any person into affirming and/or recognizing the equality of sexual acts and sexual relationships.
Marriage, by its inherent nature, is restrictive to begin with, because not every couple has the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife, and thus be married to each other. Marriage cannot in essence be and not be, existing in relationship as husband and wife simultaneously. By removing one of the necessary requirements for a civil marriage to be valid, which is the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife, thus invalidating the validity of a valid civil marriage, while promoting marriage fraud and the sin of adultery, The Supreme Court has made it possible for every relationship to be declared a marriage, if one so desires, and thus made it possible for every one to receive special marital benefits, whether they have the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife or not.
The State does not have the right to invalidate every marriage that consists of a man and woman, who have the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife, or to promote adultery, or to declare, that any relationship, if one so desires, can be called marriage, now that, in order to be married, it is no longer necessary to have the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife.
Marriage is not discriminatory against men or women, because marriage consists of one man, and one woman, existing in relationship as husband and wife. Every man is free to choose a woman to be his wife, and every woman is free to choose a man to be her husband, as long as that particular man and woman have the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife.
There is no inherent Right to deny The Sanctity of the marital act, which is Life-affirming and Life-sustaining and can only be consummated between a man and woman united in marriage, as husband and wife. Only in a complementary relationship of Love, between a man and woman, united in marriage as husband and wife, can two become one body, one spirit, in Love, creating a new family.
It is not physically possible for two people of the same sex to form a sexual union, thus it is not possible for two people of the same-sex to be married to each other.
One should never underestimate the value of a Loving friendship, which, because it respects our inherent Dignity as a beloved son or daughter, serves for The Common Good.
I think what Bishop Paprocki said in an interview I conducted with him is very informative:
“In terms of the pressure being put on the Church as mentioned in that CDF document, I think is really what we are seeing happening very forcefully right now. Because the push for gay rights has always been incremental steps. It started for example with domestic partnerships. Even the terminology domestic partnerships and the argument: we just need that so I can visit my gay partner who is in the hospital, we need legal rights, domestic partnerships that was the first thing. Then it moved to civil unions and then it was ratcheted up to same-sex marriage. Well, they’ve achieved all that, in civil law, so the target for so long has been to get recognition in civil law, and now that’s been achieved. So in our country, civil law has recognized same-sex marriage. What they don’t have is moral approval. And the only place that can give them the approval is the Church. So I think that’s the next target here. In terms of putting pressure on the Church in order to give that kind of moral approval to say what you’re doing is morally acceptable.”
In other words – allow “civil unions” and you will soon have “gay marriages” and then begins the effort to sacramentalize those unions.