Denver Newsroom, Oct 21, 2020 / 06:49 pm (CNA).-
“Francesco,” a newly released documentary on the life and ministry of Pope Francis, has made global headlines, because the film contains a scene in which Pope Francis calls for the passage of civil union laws for same-sex couples.
Some activists and media reports have suggested that Pope Francis has changed Catholic teaching by his remarks. Among many Catholics, the pope’s comments have raised questions about what the pope really said, what it means, and what the Church teaches about civil unions and marriage. CNA looks at those questions.
What did Pope Francis say about civil unions?
During a segment of “Francesco” which discussed Pope Francis’ pastoral care of Catholics who identify as LGBT, the pope made two distinct comments.
He said first that: “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it.”
While the pope did not elaborate on the meaning of those remarks in the video, Pope Francis has spoken before to encourage parents and relatives not to ostracize or shun children who have identified as LGBT. This seems to be the sense in which the pope spoke about the right of people to be a part of the family.
Some have suggested that when Pope Francis spoke about a “right to a family,” the pope was offering a kind of tacit endorsement of adoption by same-sex couples. But the pope has previously spoken against such adoptions, saying that through them children are “deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God,” and saying that “every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help them shape their identity.”
On civil unions, the pope said that: “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered.”
“I stood up for that,” Pope Francis added, apparently in reference to his proposal to brother bishops, during a 2010 debate in Argentina over gay marriage, that accepting civil unions might be a way to prevent the passage of same-sex marriage laws in the country.
What did Pope Francis say about gay marriage?
Nothing. The topic of gay marriage was not discussed in the documentary. In his ministry, Pope Francis has frequently affirmed the doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church that marriage is a lifelong partnership between one man and one woman.
While Pope Francis has frequently encouraged a welcoming disposition to Catholics who identify as LGBT, the pope has also said that “marriage is between a man and a woman,” amd said that “the family is threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage,” and that efforts to redefine marriage “threaten to disfigure God’s plan for creation.”
Why are the pope’s comments about civil unions a big deal?
While Pope Francis has previously discussed civil unions, he has not explicitly endorsed the idea in public before. While the context of his quotes in the documentary is not fully revealed, and it is possible the pope added qualifications not seen on camera, an endorsement of civil unions for same-sex couples is a very different approach for a pope, one that represents a departure from the position of his two immediate predecessors on the issue.
In 2003, in a document approved by Pope John Paul II and written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith taught that “respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.”
Even if civil unions might be chosen by people other than same-sex couples, like siblings or committed friends, the CDF said that homosexual relationships would be “foreseen and approved by the law,” and that civil unions “would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.”
“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 document concluded.
The 2003 CDF document contains doctrinal truth, and the positions of John Paul II and Benedict XVI on how best to apply the Church’s doctrinal teaching to policy questions regarding the civil oversight and regulation of marriage. While those positions are consistent with the long-standing discipline of the Church on the issue, they are not themselves regarded as articles of faith.
Some people have said what the pope taught is heresy. Is that true?
No. The pope’s remarks did not deny or call into question any doctrinal truth that Catholics must hold or believe. In fact, the pope has frequently affirmed the Church’s doctrinal teaching regarding marriage.
The pope’s apparent call for civil union legislation, which seems to be different from the position expressed by the CDF in 2003, has been taken to represent a departure from a long-standing moral judgment that Church leaders have taught supports and upholds the truth. The CDF document said that civil union laws give tacit consent to homosexual behavior; while the pope expressed support for civil unions, he has spoken in his pontificate about the immorality of homosexual acts.
It is also important to note that a documentary interview is not a forum for official papal teaching. The pope’s remarks were not presented in their fullness, and no transcript has been presented, so unless the Vatican offers additional clarity, they need to be taken in light of the limited information available about them.
We have same-sex marriage in this country. Why is anyone talking about civil unions?
There are 29 countries in the world that legally recognize same-sex “marriage.” Most of them are in Europe, North America, or South America. But in other parts of the world, the debate over the definition of marriage is just getting started. In parts of Latin America, for example, the redefinition of marriage is not a settled political topic, and Catholic political activists there have opposed moves to normalize civil union legislation.
Opponents of civil unions say they are usually a bridge to same-sex marriage legislation, and marriage campaigners in some countries have said they are concerned that LGBT lobbyists will use the pope’s words in the documentary to advance a pathway to same-sex marriage.
What does the Church teach about homosexuality?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that those who identify as LGBT “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
The Catechism elaborates that homosexual inclinations are “objectively disordered,” homosexual acts are “contrary to the natural law,” and those who identify as lesbian and gay, like all people, are called to the virtue of chastity.
Are Catholics bound to agree with the pope on civil unions?
Pope Francis’ statements in “Francesco” do not constitute formal papal teaching. While the pope’s affirmation of the dignity of all people and his call for respect of all people are rooted in Catholic teaching, Catholics are not obliged to support a legislative or policy position because of the pope’s comments in a documentary.
Some bishops have expressed that they are awaiting further clarity on the pope’s comments from the Vatican, while one explained that: “While Church teaching on marriage is clear and irreformable, the conversation must continue about the best ways to reverence the dignity of those in same–sex relationships so that they are not subject to any unjust discrimination.”
[…]
I remember hearing about stuff like this back in the 1970’s & ’80’s. It should have died a quiet death. It’s too bad we have to resurrect it again.
Mrscracker there are wild ceremonies – the Vatican Garden Amazonia Synod ceremony among the milder, and there are wilder [meaning unconventional Liturgy]. If you remember, seaside marriages were the thing post Vat II. Fr Malachi Brendan Martin [Irish born controversial Jesuit priest confidant to Paul VI unhappy with the dissolution of faith post Vat II permitted to leave his order accepted by the Archbishop of New York] gives one such wild account in his book Hostage to the Devil. A priest performing the ceremony unknown to all except for the suspicion of another priest friend, onlooker from a short distance – was diabolically possessed. The celebrant priest suddenly leaped at the hopeful bride dragged her into the pounding surf both grappling she for her life he attempting to drown her. His priest friend plunged into the surf with others and saved her then dragged his possessed friend away. The priest was consequently exorcised with permission of the Bishop. Fr Martin who attended several exorcisms gave the background of this priest’s possession. He was a young priest, nature lover who began finding intense, what he presumed mystical experience contemplating beautiful pastoral scenery. It got to the point that he began unconsciously substituting Eucharistic Prayer wording with aspects of nature including the consecration similar to This is my sunshine rather than Body. Bizarre yes but apparently true. His friend picked up on this and suspected something deeply wrong, his fears confirmed at the seashore wedding ceremony. Added to this I can’t withhold a sense of alarm over the Vatican Amazonia ceremony. Aside from Fr Martin’s book my experience in Africa, and with some of our Southwest Native Americans was that virtually all if not all the pagan ceremonials, rituals had an underlying evil dimension, some immoral finality.
Chaos and cosmos; cosmos and chaos? What about creation ex nihilo?
Assisi tree planting symbol of the Little Poor Man who through the years became more identified with butterflies and Nature than the Crucified Savior whose wounds he bore. Parallel to the earthly humanization of the saintly mystic is Christianity’s demythologizing less mystical more mundane guitars banjos Gregorian chant a memory. Anomaly is global minded brethren are rigidly intolerant toward brethren with discriminating mores. Stridently so. Britain passed law that certain words are forbidden everywhere anytime the home no longer sanctuary arrest possible. Portend? Semi pagan marvelous display of European man stolid in appearance with painted face semi religious the woman shaman who indeed made the sign of the Cross after she exorcised the Pontiff with secret powder magic words at the Vatican lawn ceremony. Woman shaman woman priests. A passing thought. It appeared early on we’re at a crossroads Christ’s Revelation one pathway Paradigm Shift the other. Question for us all is which pathway the Bishop of Rome will take and which will we? Faith in Christ dispels that question.
“Which pathway will the bishop of Rome take” this bishop of Rome just had shamans performe a ceremony steps away from where Peter was curcified upside down. The path he has been on from the start to change the dogmatic teachings of Christ and His church. How much more does he need to do or not do? The not do is getting rid of those who promote that which Jesus said “NO” and are trying to instigate well “yes” those aren’t really sins and there is no punishment except for the “ridgid” who actually do believe in “death, judgment, heaven and hell” along with evanelizing the world to come to Christ and His Church. Geeze this pontif has said not to evangelize and essentially all doctrines of differing beliefs are wished by God which goes directly (do not pass go) against “I am the way, the truth, the light no one comes to the Father except through Me”. Love all with the charity to get them into heaven.
Katedee this Pontiff is by far the greatest challenge in its long history to the Church’s faith in Christ. Know we’re being tested.
Guess we should accept Wicca…um no! Lord please give us a new Pope!
While the surface of the earth is some 130 Billion acres, why does it now become necessary to smear Amazonia/Wiccan graffiti on the 109 acres of Vatican grounds? Even as Amazonia bishops–some of the curiously German–continue to wallow in a working-paper swamp. Pope Pius IX, the Prisoner of the Vatican, weeps.
To his credit, the manipulated Pope Francis remained outside the circle, and even departed from “prepared remarks” (no doubt prepared by some puppet-master ghost writer) and instead appealed to Our Father who [still] art in heaven.
And Michalangelo’s overhead Sistine Ceiling still recalls the real Creation, if only in barely a quarter of an acre of surface area, but at least it’s above our eyes rather than below our feet–as if the metaphysical terms “above” and “below” still mean anything.
As with history’s disfigured “Amazons” of old, a New Paradigm that amputates the present from Tradition simply is not the way to keep abreast of significant truths.
“People carried bowls of dirt from different places around the world, each symbolizing a different issue from ecological devastation to migration. The dirt was placed around a tree from Assisi, which was planted as a ‘symbol of integral ecology.’ ”
Yes, nothing says “integral” (or a concern for Nature as “natural”) like placing samples of dirt from various diverse sources that realistically and organically do not occur around a particular tree in a particular place in time. An apt gesture which also embodies the forced sense of “natural” in same sex marriage, transgender ideology, “death with dignity” and a female priesthood, which invariably, shortly after the sobbing “newly ordained” ex-nun (who always just “knew” she had a vocation) hugs all her priestess friends becomes likewise in short order first pantheistic but then Chthonic and Christless, pretty much lesbian, “women love better” witchcraft.
Forgive me. I give little credit to Bergoglio for staying out of the circle or no comments. This may even be his “respect” for the whole thing and his silence just part of his politics.
“After what appeared to be the offering of prayers by participants, who prostrated themselves on the grass around a blanket upon which fruit, candles, and several carved items were set, an indigenous woman approached the pope and presented him with a black ring, which appeared identical to the one she was wearing.”
Ah, the commitment to the poor (and “making a mess”) in the tucum ring! No worries, folks! No need to say to Bergoglio, “You know the first year of marriage can be quite an adjustment.”
So much of this makes even Plotinus seem like Fulton Sheen. It’s not “matter” here that’s “evil”…but “matter as deity?” I do think that such a religion (this emerging religion) is indeed ultimately “evil” (and allows for infanticide, sexual abuse/poly-perversity and euthanasia as “natural”) and is ultimately non-transcendent…non-salvific…and for all the talk of being “cosmic” it is primarily tribal…and yes, it also appeals to the Germans.
With regards to St. Francis of Assisi, much of this “mess” started already with a post Vatican II counterfeit “Franciscan joy” popularized by Franciscans in the mid-80s through the 90s but still in progress? their convenient take on St. Francis’s reverence for the Eucharist and churches in almost mandatory loud, yes campy guffawing in the sanctuary and boisterous laughter and chatting after Liturgies.
The loss of reverence for the Eucharist opened the door for this “new church.”
I’ll say it again: this is just apostasy.
Apostasy, or something worse and even more interesting?
Perhaps the lawn artistry and symbolism (following the collage/chaos instrumentum laboris) is just a passing symptom of syncretic, confused and fused evangelization, devoid of clear Christian affirmation. First the Tree of Life, then the Tree of “the knowledge of good and evil,” then the Burning Bush on holy ground, BUT NOW and once again a flat-universe and a merely cosmic tree rooted in only the dampened ground of Mother Earth.
A piece of lawn art serving as a territorial marking for a new-paradigm/hybrid religion? And, as dampened ground, a natural marking of territorial dominance as if by any typical quadruped in the wild during rutting season?
The historic elevation of some pre-Christian elements into the new creation of Christian symbolism/channels for grace was one thing (e.g., fertility and the family); but the surrender today of Christian verities to pre- post- and anti-Christian paganism and hybrid lawn markings is quite another (“images of two semi-naked pregnant women”).
The Amazon anaconda kills by incremental strangulation and then swallows its prey whole, head first. One could wonder, after this desecration (yes?) of the Vatican ground whether it should be reconsecrated…
“By Courtney Grogan
Vatican City, Oct 4, 2019 / 10:30 am (CNA).- Pope Francis witnessed an indigenous performance at a tree planting ceremony in the Vatican gardens Friday, during which people held hands and bowed before carved images of pregnant women, one of which reportedly represented the Blessed Virgin Mary. ”
An additional detail from CNA presented above.
That and other aspects of this “ecological ritual” may very well require a reconsecration…to follow up on the “ecological ritual.”
Perhaps Bergoglio being outside the circle was actually a part of the ritual, to symbolize/embody that a new church was being established with the Petrine office and Faith being…”developed.”
And all of this is happening during the Month of the Rosary.
I hope and pray that Francis’s successor as Pope will imitate St Boniface and take a chainsaw to that tree.
The “Sin of Manasseh” (2 Kings 21: 7-15) leads to the exile of Judah and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Just what was the “sin”? Exactly what just occurred in the Vatican Gardens. Manasseh, the King of Judah brought an Asherah into the courtyard and then into the Temple to “worship” (bow before). Just what is an Asherah? A carved graven image of the fertility goddess and/or a tree. Does the Pope not read the Bible?
I am sure he does read the Bible, but I am less sure that he applies it to himself.