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.”
[…]
What’s with these airplane interviews? Everything was so clear after the Pope snuggled up to Bonino, Pelosi, Biden, Clinton, Soros, Sachs, et al. Now the Pope confuses us again by saying he is against murder. How long Lord?!
Unlike pro-life heroes Popes St. JP II and BXVI, Pope Francis uses the papacy to legitimize worldwide abortion leaders like the Clinton Foundation. That is fraudulent. Who could be surprised since he told us in 2013 that abortion was not a priority of his pontificate, and every action confirms this travesty. If sins below the belt do not matter, why should the pregnancies that result? Why should anyone be impressed when Pope Francis rarely tacks abortion onto his interests? There is no one more poor than the unwanted child in the womb. Abortion and it’s proponents have thrived unchecked everywhere Bergoglio has been a Bishop. He has no credibility on the issue.
“God does not give up if we are late in responding to Him.” The murdered unborn are with God and praying for us.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-pope-interview/pope-says-church-must-end-obsession-with-gays-contraception-abortion-idUKBRE98I0S020130919
Yes. How long? You don’t play with life, you just rehabilitate rapists.
Mmm. I’ll be waiting to see how much coverage this presser gets in the so-called mainstream media.
There’s no need to pan the Pope. Especially when the pontiff is willing to stand up for human life and when he is willing to admonish us about the dangers of playing God with human life.
“Whether it is the law not to let the child grow in the mother’s womb or the law of euthanasia in disease and old age,” he said, “I am not saying it is a faith thing, but it is a human thing: there is bad compassion.”
Faith has no bearing? I’m confused
I think the Holy Father is saying that one doesn’t have to be a believer to know that abortion and euthanasia are wrong: the inviolability of human life is defensible according to reason.
He means that you don’t need to believe in God to know that a child in the womb and an elderly person are human beings and that to kill them is to kill a human being. It is a matter of DNA. A being with a human DNA is a human being. Whether you believe in God or in the gods or in no god doesn’t change the fact that you are killing a human being.
As Catholics, we believe that each human being is created in the image of God and has immeasurable value. That is a further step. He is trying to get the first fact across.
Those who support abortion and euthanasia keep trying to get people to believe that it is a matter of religious belief, not a matter of science. If it is a matter of religious belief, then one can believe in it if one wants. If it is a matter of science, then it is an objective fact. But people don’t like objective facts nowadays.
But if there is no God, no after life⁹ no suffering on the cross, why would abortion or euthanasia be wrong? If it was a case of one life over and out then the avoidance of suffering would be critical. Only Faith makes sense and gives purpose.
I believe that the recent president of the pro-life Democrats was an atheist. Is it unthinkable for someone to value human beings because of humanism and a knowledge of science?
I believe the Holy Father was trying to emphasize that killing has no place regardless of one’s religion (or no religion). This perspective is pretty consistent with his views on the death penalty and war.
Actually, it is not. He has never been consistent about anything, including life issues. A blanket condemnation of war and capital punishment is not pro-life. Moral applications of both save lives. And Francis has been soft on abortion in the past through his actions. His beliefs often appear to shift with his mood of the moment. A few years ago, after speaking out against euthanasia, he hastily added, “But the moral law must not be applied mechanically.” I’m glad he is mostly right on this occasion for a change even though there is a slight inference that euthanasia is more wrong now because of better management of pain, which is a falsehood. He still has trouble understanding that truth is eternal. It never changes. Still, maybe he is finally discovering some aspects of orthodox Catholic theology.
Yeah, miracles do occur, so yeah, he may discover and accept some aspects of orthodox Catholic theology. It is hoped that miracle will not be too long or late in occurring.
My interpretation would be that one needn’t have faith to condemn abortion and euthanasia. Anyone of good will committed to upholding principles of natural law could see their way to doing so. Faith commands us to obey the natural law. But one can do so without faith as well.
I would think that traditional, orthodox, backwardist Catholics would all – to a person – be very much aware that murdering the unborn and tossing the sick and useless eldering onto a garbage heap was morally offensive. Who was Francis reminding of Church teaching and the natural law? Surely not those he despises.
He was speaking to everyone, Catholics, non-Catholics, non-believers. Please see me previous comment in reply to knowall.
But, he has a habit of ‘running away from God.’ There are documents that have come out of Francis’ Vatican that have little or no mention of Christ. He speaks about evangelizing without proselytizing yet he shies away even from referencing Christ in his promotion of morality. Since when does giving preference to what we know by dint of our reason mean that we should avoid any mention of God? Let’s remember that Francis is not some university professor of philosophy; he is the Vicar of Christ.
We are encouraged by this papal reference to moral absolutes…
While tangential to our Holy Father’s focused message, a larger listing is supplied below. Hopeful, too, his clear message will be included—and broadened—at the end of Synod 2023, when “the leadership” offers its Questions for Reflection heading into Synod 2024 and its recommendations.
About the interim Reflections, here are three suggestions from the back bleachers:
FIRST, that “subsidiarity” will be substantially developed throughout, such that local bishops (within the “hierarchical communion” and as successors of the apostles are reinstated as more than initial “facilitators”). No need for centrally (mis)managed and larded up programs franchised to (pre-Vatican II) bishop administrators.Especially where prudential judgment is a factor, as in all Catholic Social Thought/Teaching.
SECOND, that the Synod members and the leadership, both, will discern clearly, and fully reject wherever the “smoke of Satan” might have ambiguously insinuated itself into the synodal rhetoric and shopping list.
THIRD, that clarity on how synodal engagement in the world fits into (does not replace) the higher mission of the Church—as is concisely clarified in mutually complementary parts of Gaudium et Spes and elsewhere:
Examples: “Earthly progress must be carefully distinguished from the growth of Christ’s kingdom. Nevertheless, to the extent that the former can contribute to the better ordering of human society, it is of vital concern to the kingdom of God” (n. 39, citing Pope Pius XI), but also, yes, “The Christian who neglects his temporal duties neglects his duties toward his neighbor and even God, and jeopardizes his eternal soul” (n. 43).
AND, of course, Veritatis Splendor (nn. 56, 95, 115) which now explicitly incorporates [!] Natural Law and moral absolutes into the permanent Magisterium.
These non-ideological perspectives become greater synodal “concerns” as we seem to be drifting away from a world of so-called “progress” and toward one of disintegration, with sins of moral omission—inattention to blindsided and real victims of all kinds, to natural disasters, to invertebrate “tolerance” by uprooted culture, economics, politics and society—and by less-than-steadfast word games, imposed on moral/ecclesial certainties in some parts of the Church itself.
_____________________________________________
NOTE: From the Catechism and the Magisterium (n. 2033-5), those intrinsically evil acts which are immoral under all circumstances and non-negotiable, include: intentional killing of the innocent (nn. 2270, 2273), infanticide (n. 2268), abortion (n. 2273), euthanasia (n. 2277); AND sexual immorality (nn. 2352, 2353, 2356, 2357, 2370, 2380, 2381). And, from the SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, these significant entries: Gaudium et Spes, n. 27 third paragraph, and n. 79 second paragraph.
On second thought, are the above “recommendations” actually IMPERATIVES? Not to be deferred from 2023 to 2024? What kind of “leadership” cajoles Successors of the Apostles (apostello: “sent”) to have a meeting about a meeting?
The Holy Spirit? Did he do this at Pentecost…”come back next year”? Maybe yes to a phased approach, but what really are the ground rules???
After a solid decade of deliberately – and undeniably – uttering confusing, contradictory and divisive statements, Pope Francis has nevertheless revealed his cunning method of eroding Catholic belief. Pope Francis gushes over his abortionist, homosexualist and pan-en-theist friends and then – after exposing himself as a Globalist cheerleader – he shrewdly says something “Catholic” to neutralize criticism, thereby protecting the platform of the papacy he requires to continue attacking the full and authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ. If Pope Francis truly believes that abortionists are “hitmen”, then why does he honour hitmen with the Order of St. Gregory ? If abortion is murder, then why does Pope Francis call murderers “good Catholics” ? These questions are rhetorical – and the answers are obvious.
Honestly, my first thought was that he was just playing to the crowd. He might believe. He might not. I don’t honestly know for sure.
Bingo. Thank you, Father. It is hard for me to fathom how any believing Catholic can take any statement like this from PF seriously. His actions speak louder than his words.
I thought you are supposed to “hate the sin and love the sinner”. Now you’ve got me totally confused! How are we supposed to talk to sinners?
What does the duplicity of Francis have to do with that admonition of Our Lord considering that the criticisms here are that Francis has a long record of hypocrisy on the matter of abortion and being supportive of the world’s most notorious abortionists rather than “hating their sins”? What you might take into consideration is the deep-rooted inconsistency of Francis, a reality that traditionalists or orthodox or simply conservative Catholics (Catholics who are Catholic) have been agonizingly aware.
Francis slanders faithful, non-ideological Catholics around the world as faithless ideologues, which his warped sociology equates as Americanism, while remaining oblivious to his own devout ideological views of global social management by Davos elitists and his non-religious faith in their syncretistic cult of inevitable progress knowing full well of their imperatives of mandatory abortion policies in pursuit of their secular utopia, which he also affirms with his theology where God changes His mind to accommodate His creation. Thus, his preposterous word for those who do not see God as an idiot as backwardists.
Whatever religious beliefs Francis actually has is a mystery for anyone willing to be honest about the totality of what he has said. But his moral sense has been blowing with the wind for a long time and Catholics are wise to not take impulsive statements too seriously when he might well undermine them a month later before the same global audience. Hailing him as a supreme example means we share the moral evil when he does damage later.
I appreciate CWR’s sidebar of past articles. I just now read “Michigan religious order criticizes the LCWR”, June 14, 2012.
Congratulate me! I’m only 11 years behind!
Belated kudos to the Michigan sisters.
At this stage of his game, I don’t give a whit what he believes, thinks, or claims to receive from his ‘holy’ spirit. I’ve given the pope up and over to God. Is there any reason why we need attend to words coming from forked tongues?
Thank you to those who clarified my “faith” quandary. It is difficult to reach those who are so obtuse on the future of the human race, but perhaps it will impact some.
To get a correct perspective on Bergoglio’s remarks on life issues Google up:
Actions do indeed speak far louder than words.
How impressed would you be if Confederate president Jefferson Davis had occasionally remarked that racism was wrong. His actions would far outweigh his words, right? So it is with Bergoglio on the life issues.
From womb to tomb, life is sacred and a precious gift.
Amen Papa. Bravo, belle parole da vivere.
Amen Papa!
These comments underscore the major problem of this papacy — it’s not when he’s clear like this, it’s when he’s ambiguous that’s the problem.
I’m sure the crowd he hangs out with doesn’t help him in these matters.
“I am not saying it is a faith thing, but it is a human thing: there is bad compassion.” . . . by defining the argument to be a non-spiritual “thing”, pardon me for thinking so, but doesn’t he just undermine his own authority to speak on the matter? I am not looking for excuses for the man, but I am also not looking at him through what years of disappointment have wrought.
One of Pope Francis’ cunning tactics is to speak truth and falsehood on alternate days, thereby dividing the Catholic faithful, pitting them against each other, arguing over what they think he may have said – instead of forming a unified phalanx that could effectively battle against his Anti-gospel.
You don’t play with life.
I will pray for you under obligation and out of love. God will hear my prayer.
Sinner that I am, you can not tell me or anyone else better than I or worse than I, to “Let’s go to the peripheries”, when it is leading them to co-operate with purveyors of abortion and contraception.
You can not. You shall not. The Lord will not have you change subjects like that let alone with so many whimsies attending and ignoring the one who speaks to you in His Name.