CNA Staff, Oct 21, 2020 / 06:35 am (CNA).-
In a documentary that premiered Wednesday in Rome, Pope Francis called for the passage of civil union laws for same-sex couples, departing from the position of the Vatican’s doctrinal office and the pope’s predecessors on the issue.
The remarks came amid a portion of the documentary that reflected on pastoral care for those who identify as LGBT.
“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,” Pope Francis said in the film, of his approach to pastoral care.
After those remarks, and in comments likely to spark controversy among Catholics, Pope Francis weighed in directly on the issue of civil unions for same-sex couples.
“What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered,” the pope said. “I stood up for that.”
The remarks come in “Francesco,” a documentary on the life and ministry of Pope Francis which premiered Oct. 21 as part of the Rome Film Festival, and is set to make its North American premiere on Sunday.
The film chronicles the approach of Pope Francis to pressing social issues, and to pastoral ministry among those who live, in the words of the pontiff, “on the existential peripheries.”
Featuring interviews with Vatican figures including Cardinal Luis Tagle and other collaborators of the pope, “Francesco” looks at the pope’s advocacy for migrants and refugees, the poor, his work on the issue of clerical sexual abuse, the role of women in society, and the disposition of Catholics and others toward those who identify as LGBT.
The film addresses the pastoral outreach of Pope Francis to those who identify as LGBT, including a story of the pontiff encouraging two Italian men in a same-sex relationship to raise their children in their parish church, which, one of the men said, was greatly beneficial to his children.
“He didn’t mention what was his opinion on my family. Probably he’s following the doctrine on this point,” the man said, while praising the pope for a disposition and attitude of welcome and encouragement.
The pope’s remarks on civil unions come amid that part of the documentary. Filmmaker Evgeny Afineevsky told CNA that the pope made his call for civil unions during an interview the documentarian conducted with the pope.
The pope’s direct call for civil union laws represents a shift from the perspective of his predecessors, and from his own more circumspect positions on civil unions in the past.
In 2010, while he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Pope Francis opposed efforts to legalize same-sex marriage. While Sergio Rubin, the future pope’s biographer, suggested that Francis supported the idea of civil unions as a way to prevent the wholesale adoption of same-sex marriage in Argentina, Miguel Woites, director of the Argentinian Catholic news outlet AICA, dismissed in 2013 that claim as false.
But the pope’s mention of having previously “stood up” for civil unions seems to confirm the reports of Rubin and others who said that then-Cardinal Bergoglio supported privately the idea of civil unions as a compromise in Argentina.
In the 2013 book “On Heaven and Earth,” Pope Francis did not reject the possibility of civil unions outright, but did say that laws “assimilating” homosexual relationships to marriage are “an anthropological regression,” and he expressed concern that if same-sex couples “are given adoption rights, there could be affected children. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help them shape their identity.”
In 2014, Fr. Thomas Rosica, who was then working in the Holy See’s press office told CNA that Pope Francis had not expressed support for same-sex civil unions, after some journalists reported that he had done so in an an interview that year. While a civil unions proposal was debated in Italy, Rosica emphasized that Francis would not weigh in on the debate, but would emphasize Catholic teaching on marriage.
In 2003, under the leadership of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and at the direction of Pope John Paul II, the Vatican’s 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. 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,” the CDF added, calling support for such unions from politicians “gravely immoral.”
“Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase,” the document said.
The Vatican’s press office did not respond to questions from CNA on the pope’s remarks in the film.
While bishops in some countries have not opposed same-sex civil unions proposals, and tried instead to distinguish them from civil marriage, opponents of civil unions have long warned that they serve as a legislative and cultural bridge to same-sex marraige initiatives, give tacit approval to immorality, and fail to protect the rights of children to be parented by both a mother and father.
Afineevsky told EWTN News this month that he tried in “Francesco” to present the pope as he saw him, and that the film might not please all Catholics. He told CNA Wednesday that in his view, the film is not “about” the pope’s call for civil unions, but “about many other global issues.”
“I’m looking at him not as the pope, I’m looking at him as a humble human being, great role model to younger generation, leader for the older generation, a leader to many people not in the sense of the Catholic Church, but in the sense of pure leadership, on the ground, on the streets,” Afineevsky added.
The documentarian said he began working with the Vatican to produce a film on Pope Francis in 2018, and was given unprecedented access to Pope Francis until filming completed in June, amid Italy’s coronavirus lockdowns.
Afineevsky, a Russian-born filmmaker living in the U.S., was in 2015 nominated for both an Academy Award and an Emmy Award for his work “Winter on Fire,” a documentary that chronicled Ukraine’s 2013 and 2014 Euromaidan protests. His 2017 film “Cries from Syria” was nominated for four News and Documentary Emmy Awards and three Critics’ Choice Awards.
On Thursday, Afineevsky will be presented in the Vatican Gardens with the prestigious Kineo Movie for Humanity Award, which recognizes filmmakers who present social and humanitarian issues through filmmaking. The award was established in 2002 by the Italian Ministry of Culture.
Rosetta Sannelli, the creator of the Kineo Awards, noted that “every trip of Pope Francis to various parts of the world is documented in Afineevsky’s work, in images and news footage, and reveals itself as an authentic glimpse into the events of our time, a historical work in all respects.”
[…]
At this point, what more is there to say?
Amen!
Farrell, Roche, Cupich.
Lord help us (again).
Don’t forget Bishop McElroy( new Cardinal) another Modernist member.
Most important [not to diminish liturgy] is Roche, Tagle, Farrell, Cupich assigned to Discipline of the Sacraments. Whatever Burmese Bo or Scot Gilbert may prefer they’re outnumbered by among the most liberal cardinals in the Church. Adherents of Amoris Laetitia and all it entails. Nonetheless the ordinary of the diocese the likes of Archbishop Cordileone, Bishop Paprocki et al cannot be compelled to ignore the canons of the Church 915 in particular. Although the appointments anticipate engagement ahead.
But great picture!
The photo says everything we need to know about Cupich. Somehow I doubt he has that one hanging in his office.
Yeah, I’m not sure about the picture. McCarrick was promoted by JP2, and promoted again, despite allegations going back to the 1990s. B16 never did anything about him, and even Archbishop Vigano was in Ted’s corner until he wasn’t. As far as I know, Mr McCarrick was never involved in liturgical governance, unlike the new DDWDS archbishop.
So, is this just more simmering discontent about Amoris, or McCarrick, or Cupich because all is not right in CatholicWorld? Or is there a point? I’m sure if we combed the internet just as carefully we could find all sorts of conservative heroes ponying up to the greatest fundraiser of all time, right?
So true. To try to smear Cardinal Cupich with the photo even before a single word of the story is surely a type of “journalism” unworthy of Catholic World Report. I suggest you make amends by digging up and publishing every single photo of McCarrick with every Catholic prelate, including recent popes!
The Catholic hierarchy is looking more and more like an exclusive club for closeted homosexuals. God help us.
Will this appointment bring sanctity, godliness and honour to the table?
I believe that when Jesus prayed that all might be one He was likely thinking that the ONE would be in line with his teachings. It sure seems like Francis is taking a play out of the book of Chairman Joe in appointing people to posts based on their political leanings rather than their support for Church teaching. Both seem determined to destroy what they are sworn to defend.
Unfortunately, this simply further reinforces the suspicion that long before being elected pope, Senor Bergoglio was, and perhaps still is, one of “them”.
Oh, greeaaaaaaaat.
Since one of our commenters has posted an open question as to what concerns might connect with photos and reports involving the message communicated by items such as “Cupich-McCarrick” above, and as most other commenters have noted their disgust of these 2, I offer this video posted in February by Damian Thompson, of Holy Smoke (Spectator) showing what Thompson says is the Pontiff Francis “lying” to a reporter confronting his actions as head of the Argentine Bishops Conference, to defend and protect the Argentine child sex predator “Rev.” Julio Grassi, now serving a 15 yr prison sentence in Argentina. See video here:
https://mobile.twitter.com/holysmoke/with_replies
As other commenters have alluded to the larger problem (which includes being silent about warehousing sex abusers near schools…such as Cupich did…and behavior like Cardinal Bergoglio/Pontiff Francis in defending sex abusers, smearing accusers, and rehabilitating and promoting both sex abusers…McCarrick and “Rev. Inzoli…and coverup artists…such as Danneels of Belgium…protector of his friend “His Excellency” Vanguelwhe…the Belgian McCarrick…who raped his own nephew), I believe that the understandable and wholesome response to photos and stories involving the message conveyed by “Cupich-McCarrick” imagery is this:
The problem with all of the above named high-ranking clerics etc etc etc, is that they are simply all of the same mind, “the mind of McCarrick” (to paraphrase St. Paul).
If this is the point, then the DDWDS angle is irrelevant. CWP aimed wrongly. Instead, they could have produced an op-ed about corruption in the Church, from John Paul II and Benedict XVI on down. Or out.
Mr Thompson is an opinion writer. In other words, a gossip columnist. Is that the kind of journalism that good Catholics aspire to produce, read, and desire? Mr Thompson is essentially the same as the rest of us here: we offer opinions on stuff. And sometimes we find a picture, a tweet, a snapchat to back up what we believe or want to believe. When our opinions offer untruths, it is detraction. Then it becomes a grave sin against the Commandments.
“The problem with all of the above named high-ranking clerics etc etc etc, is that they are simply all of the same mind …”
I can think of a few feminists who might say the same. Their problem would be that they are all clerics–all men, in other words.
Mr. Flowerday:
Your contempt for Damian Thompson is not a reasonable argument, and it gives the impression that your intention id to ignore the case of then-Archbishop Bergoglio and his defense of the predator Julio Grassi.
The accusation made by Thompson is that the video shows the Pontiff Francis in the act of denying that he defended and tried to protect Julio Grassi.
Multiple sources in Argentina and outside it, have stated that Archbishop Bergoglio defended Grassi, and spent millions of Church dollars doing it, and smearing Grassi’s accusers. Among the sources are a judge on the Argentine high court, who stated that Archbishop Bergoglio tried to intervene in the trial by submitting the reported “defense/smear” to him, presumably with the intent that it be shared with other judges on the Argentine supreme court, as an inside maneuver, an act hidden from the eyes of Argentine public.
The video shows a reporter confronting the Pontiff Francis about his role in defending Grassi, and all can see that the Pontiff denies it.
This matter is not the first denial, as in a recent hagiography of the former Archbishop Bergoglio, the then-Archbishop says he never had any sex abuse issues when he was tbe Archbishop. I believe that statement, if memory serves, was made in Austin Ivereigh’s book in Pontiff F, “The Great Reformer.” We can all go find it, as it is in print now.
When a is charge made, then we are on the ground of rebuttable presumptions. Silence in the face of charges involving sex abuse are not “Christ-like,” as many opinion-peddlers prefer to insist.
The fact of Grassi’s abuse has been decided in the Argentine high court, and the charges that Archbishop Bergoglio orchestrated a behind the curtsin defense if Grassi are made by people in Argentina, including one of the high court judges.
The people making these charges are doing it publicly, in writing snd here in video.
Luke any man, Pontiff Francis is duty bound to answer, and others are duty bound to press the charge, and Thompson and others are doing it.
The charge is very consistent with the behavior pattern of Pontiff Francis regarding sex abusers (e.g., Inzoli of Italy) and coverup Cardinals (e.g., Danneels of Belgium).
The pattern of behavior is a fact, and the charges are lsid in public.
Pretending that this particular Pontiff is above it all shows a degree of “devotion” to this particular Pontiff.
Whether or not there is a comparable degree devotion to the pursuit of truth is in question.
The preference for avoidance and silence on the matter may very likely explain why the Pontiff Francis has avoided traveling to visit his home country.
Pretending reality isn’t happening is a bad modus operandi for the Church.
It ought to trade that in for a pursuit of the truth.
That might cause us all to intersect with The Man Who Is The Truth.
I hope it does, in every case, including those involving the Pontiff Francis.
“I take seriously my obligation to …pray, as Jesus did the night before he died, that all may be one,” he [Cupich] wrote.
If God had wanted the Church to be one according to Bergoglio and Cupich, He surely would have let us know. NB: Cupich does not define his ‘one.’ It’s a sure bet that his meaning differs from mine and my Catholic friends.
Meanwhile, I and my family shall follow the Lord and the Church He handed onto His apostles. When the one big moshey mess of immoral relativist hierarchs claim the Church must follow their way of progress, I’ll pray the breath of God to blow them away like the fluff of cottonwood seeds. And He shall.
Cupich is one of the most notorious coverup artists in the US Episcopate. When he was in charge of the Josephinum in Ohio he allowed it to be turned into a gay bathhouse. Whe he was Bishop of Spokane he allowed the Jesuits to turn Gonzaga University into a retirement home for predator priests from Alaska. He has continued to cover up sexual abuse as Archbishop of Chicago. And yet, despite all this (or possibly because of it) Pope Bergoglio continues to reward and promote him. It is long overdue for him to exchange his red hat and cassock for an orange jumpsuit.
What’s in yellow, below:
comments containing … personal attacks
Mr du Toit, can you prove these allegations?
Look: I get the culture of anti-celebrity. It’s a flip side of hero-worship. And many, many contemporary heroes have been sullied: Maciel, Law, Finn, Nienstedt, Corapi, etc.. We dislike someone in the public eye–what they did, the way they look, an opinion we don’t like.
When we chase after a hero–a mentor we know, a saint we can read about–we engage our faith constructively. Does the picture above engage us to grow closer to Jesus Christ? Do the allegations about bathhouses, retirement homes, lavender mafia, etc. help us in faith? Or do they stir up passions about which we can never satisfy? Cardinal Cupich isn’t going to jail anytime soon. Just standing next to a sex predator isn’t a crime. Some people have even been made saints despite having such a history.
I congratulate CWR on being open enough and faithful enough to print items like this that attack those opposed to the Church.
Onward all…we are in this together.