CNA Staff, Oct 23, 2020 / 12:00 am (CNA).- Bishops and prominent Catholics have responded to a new documentary in which Pope Francis is featured calling for civil recognition of same-sex unions, calling for caution and telling Catholics to await clarity from the Vatican after the remarks caused confusion.
The pope’s comments were made in “Francesco,” a documentary on the life and ministry of Pope Francis, released Wednesday. The film made global headlines, because the it contains a scene in which Pope Francis is portrayed calling for the passage of civil union laws for same-sex couples.
In the film, the pope is shown saying that “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered.” The apparent endorsement of civil recognition of same-sex couples by the pope garnered the widespread reaction.
“Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family,” the pope also was shown to say in the video, in a section subsequently shown to be heavily edited. “They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it,” the pope said, in reference to his approach to pastoral care.
The pope has often spoken of the need for pastoral closeness and love for people who identify as LGBT, and against family members, especially parents, ostracizing or rejecting them on account of their sexual orientation. The pope has also repeatedly said that marriage exists between one man and one woman.
Some activists and media reports have suggested that Pope Francis had changed Catholic teaching by his remarks.
The context and manner in which the film was shot, compiled and edited, have raised questions about what the pope said, the context in which he said it, what it means, and what the Church teaches about civil unions and marriage.
“Pope Francis’ remarks giving qualified support to civil unions of same–sex couples are not his first as pope,” said St. Paul-Minneapolis Archbishop Bernard Hebda on Wednesday.
“While affirming Church teaching that marriage can only be between one man and one woman, he along with others who defend traditional marriage, has shown openness to civil unions as a kind of middle way that would allow persons of the same sex in long-term relationships to have legal benefits without a civil redefinition of marriage itself.”
The archbishop said that “Church teaching on marriage is clear and irreformable,” but that “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.”
Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh said that the comments in the documentary “reflect [the pope’s] pastoral approach to persons who may be on the peripheries of society,” and “in no way signal a departure from the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning marriage or homosexuality.”
“It speaks, rather, of a pastoral approach to these issues,” Zubik said.
“In essence, Pope Francis has not promoted change in the moral or sacramental teaching of the Church. He has simply called for all people to be treated with the dignity and love which is their due by being created in God’s image and likeness and being children of the Heavenly Father.”
A 2003 document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith expressed opposition to civil unions for same-sex couples, saying that “respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.”
The film’s portrayal of a papal endorsement of same-sex unions did not change Church teaching, or alter the Church’s understanding of the nature of homosexual acts. But Francis’s apparent call for legal “cover” for same-sex unions would represent a shift in the prudential judgement of public policy options made by his predecessors.
Bishop Michael Olson of Dallas-Ft. Worth also responded to the film’s release, saying that “the Church is obliged to hand on faithfully what she has received from Christ. It is the mind of Christ that marriage is an indissoluble bond between one man and one woman. The Church preaches and acts upon this truth, regardless of the passing opinions of nations, states, or cultures.”
Noting that Pope Francis has repeatedly affirmed the Church’s unchanging position that marriage exists, and can only exist, between one man and one woman, Olson said that “comments recently recorded in the making of a documentary about Pope Francis regarding civil recognition of ‘unions’ between homosexual couples appear to have led some to the erroneous conclusion that the Church’s teaching on marriage has changed or is about to change.”
“It is a misunderstanding of rights to suggest or infer that legal arrangements of civil societies canconfer a status equivalent to marriage to couples who do not conform to God’s intention and design for marriage.”
Following the release of “Francesco,” some prominent Catholics highlighted their own past support for civil unions as a way of providing legal protections for couples of various kinds, without building a bridge towards civil recognition of same-sex marriage.
Ryan Anderson, senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, noted Wednesday that he and Princeton Professor Robert George had previously argued that civil unions would “neither introduce a rival ‘marriage-lite’ option, or treat same-sex unions as marriages.”
The Church previously opposed the recognition of civil unions, even those explicitly defined as distinct from marriage, because they could lead to eventual recognition of “same-sex marriage,” as they have done in countries like the U.K., and because they could have “the consequence of making it a model in present-day society,” and “also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.”
Some have raised questions about the significance of the pope’s comments, given that many Western countries have already brought in laws recognizing same-sex civil unions and “same-sex marriage.” But Jesuit priest and LGBT campaigner Fr. James Martin said on Twitter that the pope’s comments are “a big deal.”
“For those who think the Pope’s comments about same-sex civil unions are no big deal: Perhaps in the US or Western Europe. But in places like Poland, where some bishops are virulently anti-LGBT; or Uganda, where bishops side with laws criminalizing homosexuality, it’s a big deal.”
Martin’s comments triggered a strong response from Eastern European and African Catholics, who suggested the Jesuit’s comments were a form of cultural colonialism.
“What a shame to see an American priest passing judgement on African bishops!” responded Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier of Durban, South Africa. “Why is it a shame? Because [Martin] doesn’t know the context.”
“In recent years, especially in [President] Obama’s time, enormous pressure was put on African leaders to introduce all the Western ‘isms’ as a condition for receiving aid,” the cardinal said.
“Legalizing of abortion and homosexuality were the foremost,” Napier said.
[…]
Some random memories and impressions of Bishop Pilla from a lifelong Cleveland resident who was in sixth grade when he was installed for anyone interested:
He gave thunderous Good Friday liturgy homilies at St John’s Cathedral. They were largely “angry liberal” in content and style, but were not devoid of truth. He would rightly condemn the crass, consumerist, trashy, exploitative, throw-away culture of our time in very strong language. Mixed in would be the standard leftist political bromides. As a student and young adult, I recall the discomfort and guilt I felt listening to them. Somehow, he seemed unable or unwilling to connect the dots of the causes to the results he correctly deplored. Illegitimacy, divorce, contraception and the rampant general promiscuity were not issues he addressed very often or forcefully.
Very much a conventional liberal in most ways, he predictably repeated the USCCB cliches on issues like welfare, capital punishment, immigration and “racism.” He lamented the exodus of white Catholic families to the suburbs, and later the exurbs, while not recognizing the reasons, such as crime and drugs that made most neighborhoods in the city unsuitable for raising a family. He seemed quite comfortable associating with the mostly degenerate and mediocre Cleveland establishment and was basically part of it.
I distinctly recall an article in the the now defunct diocesan newspaper of an address he gave to “gay” Catholics. He praised them for questioning the Church on its teaching and encouraged them to continue doing so. I was told he spent the first Divine Mercy Sunday at an Earth Day event. Early in his tenure, the tabernacle at the Cathedral was moved from behind the altar to the side. Later, using a Jesuit pet, who was later taken out by an allegation of sexual abuse, he first implemented the practice of having the faithful stand throughout the Communion Rite. A number of parishes in the diocese during his time removed kneelers altogether.
He clearly favored progressives, but was capable of saying “no”. He told Future Church that it could not use Church property for events. He dropped Richard McBrien’s column from the diocesan paper. He once declined to grant permission for Catholics attending the Indians opening day game on Good Friday to eat hot dogs. Toward the end of his term, he appointed some more orthodox young priests to teaching positions at the seminary.
He usually conducted himself in a dignified manner. He seldom embarrassed himself like a Weakland, Mahoney or, today, Cupich.
On one Holy Thursday, he let an obvious homosexual priest give a lachrymose farewell address from the Cathedral pulpit. The poor guy apparently could not deal with the ordeal that was his cushy life. Pilla also did not distinguish himself in the sex abuse scandal in the early 2000s. In a deposition that was broadcast on local TV stations, he came across as a shabby liar. He left the thankless job closing urban parishes to his successor.
All in all, I’d say Pilla was a typical American bishop of the late twentieth century. By almost any measure, the Church was in Cleveland was in worse shape when he retired than when he started. He serenely presided over the decline of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Cleveland.
As a member of the Diocese of Cleveland, I second most of what Tony W has written. Bishop Pilla was not exactly affable in the mold of Cardinal Dolan, but he did have dignity, and did not disgrace his office. I agree that he was way too progressive and leftist in his leadership, which I did not appreciate. A friend of mine, who was a seminarian during the time His Excellency taught at the seminary prior to his time as a bishop, has the greatest respect and affection for Bishop Pilla, and cites him as an excellent instructor and spiritual guide on a one-to-one basis. As Tony writes, I think he did slowly move toward a more orthodox stance in spiritual leadership toward the end of his episcopate, which is very much to his credit.
It is sad that the bulk of the animosity within the diocese ended up being aimed at his successor, the late Bishop Richard Lennon. Bishop Lennon was left to lead the Diocese in the wake of the dreadful sex scandals, which he had to do in Boston after Cardinal Law’s horrible mismanagement, and to do again in Cleveland as a result of Bishop Pilla’s laxity. And then – the parish mergers and closures. My own inner-city parish was merged with another that was about a mile away. We had a good merger, and I fully understand the reasons for it, but it wasn’t that way everywhere. Two years later, our sister parish was reopened, and there are barely 40 people who attend their only Sunday Mass (no vigil Mass). Poor Bishop Lennon actually had to have undercover cops protecting him when he was present at the final Masses of closed parishes, which is absolutely disgraceful – *no one* should place his life in danger to attend Mass in the Cleveland Diocese, nor anywhere else.
In his retirement, Bishop Pilla was supportive of the Diocese and assisted when he could at Confirmations, etc. I hope with all my heart he sees the face of Jesus and makes it to heaven. But I think a bigger halo was earned by Bishop Lennon, who suffered so much for the sake of the Church. Our present shepherd, our good Bishop Malesic, who is doing a splendid job and is wonderfully pastoral and loyal to the Faith, also is pleasing to God and is doing a magnificent job, IMHO.