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.”
[…]
Don’t worry Angelo! Francis will have you out in no time! Unless you happen to have conservative or traditional leanings. In that case, good luck in the big house.
To be sure, there were several stupid business dealings, like London. But where was the theft? And didn’t the Pope approve everything?
Will we ever know where the millions went in Australia? Cardinal Pell deserved to know. What a mess.
“Loans” to family members that didn’t have to be paid back under the rationale that it would be good for the local economies where they would spend the money. Sort of like Obamanomics.
Where do you send a Cardinal to jail?
A different angle on the story: prisons and apartments. Francis has broken with his predecessors who, as Bishops of Rome, used to celebrate Holy Thursday Evening Mass for the diocese in his cathedral, St. John Lateran. Francis has delegated that job to a substitute while he does his “peripheries” thing in assorted Roman jails. Except in 2021, when he celebrated that Mass in Becciu’s apartment (in the middle of his trial). So, maybe Becciu can serve his “sentence” under “house arrest,” “accompanied” to his apartment (unless the Pope kicks him out) by the Pope who insists on living in a hotel room. Maybe we had a preview of what “peripheral accompaniment” of a poor Cardinal means?
$11K fine for a cardinal who apparently lost millions? Good deal. Papal economics?
From From 10 Vatican City Facts You Didn’t Know:
Excerpt:
2. Vatican City Has No Prison
Vatican City is likely the only nation on Earth to not have a prison. The country does have a few cells for pre-trial detention. Those convicted and sentenced to imprisonment serve time in Italian prisons as per the Lateran Treaty. The costs for imprisonment are covered by the Vatican government.
P.S.: Will Becciu be removed from the College of Cardinals while he does his time? After all, Francis insists that sexual sins are not necessarily the most serious (which, in one sense, may be true), yet he laicized McCarrick.
I am growing convinced the Polish National Catholics under Hodur, in advocating for trusteeship, were right. In a normal, democratic society (e.g., Western societies where the state’s reach into the Church is limited) there should be clear lines of separation between finance and power, not the “corporate sole” nonsense that allows Bishops to do whatever they want with the money of the People of God. Require an accountability board the majority of whose members are NOT episcopally removable (at least immediately) to approve expenditures. THAT would (a) create financial transparency AND (b) end “clericalism” by taking away a significant clerical prerogative: unlimited financial decision-making. Next time some bishop babbles about “reform” and “declericalization as Pope Francis urges” ask him (and Francis) whether they’d be willing to sign on to this financial divestment. If you can’t get a “yes” or “no” (as opposed to qualificatiosn and equivocations), call out the hot air.
The answer is not schismatic Polish National Catholic-style lay trusteeship, especially with today’s vast majority of liberal and heretical Catholics-in-name-only who do not even recognize the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. If one wants a sure recipe for disaster that is it. The answer is rather holy, orthodox, and traditional Catholic bishops and priests whose love is for Christ Crucified, not t
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That includes absolute financial power. Ask the Apostolic Treasurer, Judas. Episcopal ordination does not remove those temptations.
There’s no need for the bishop to be the sole agent who disposes of Church’s funds. If the “People of God” are the Church, there’s no reason bishops should not have to convince other people to fund their projects. They may have total responsibility in teaching. That does not imply “one signature is enough” on checks.
Yes, let’s give “financial power” to the holy fornicating, shacking-up, contracepting, aborting, pro-homosexual, and transsexual “People of God” who every recent CARA survey shows are overwhelmingly the majority of modern American “Catholics”. Let’s have Paul and Nancy Pelosi and Joe and Jill Biden as the Apostolic Treasurers. Let’s add another downward spiral to the catastrophic state of the Catholic Church. Let patron saint be Judas since he is already their model.
Yes, I agree that establishing trusteeship is a big part of what would be an “actual reform in the Church.”
The fact that it doesn’t exist, and is not being vigorously pursued, puts the Church into the hands of frauds and thieves.
All the talk of “the reform” by the sitting Pontiff and his Cardinals and Bishops is rubbish until the true reform indicated by actions like trusteeship arrangements.
We continue to hear “poverty-pimping” about the Church’s “preferential option for the poor.”
It was voiced by “His Eminence” Beccui himself, on the night he stood on the balcony in Rome next to the Pontiff Francis, moments before his introduction to the world, he reminded the new Pontiff to “remember the poor.”
These characters are the supreme carnival…
Speaking of prosecuting the criminally stupid, did this show trial cost a million? How can anyone donate to this pontificate?
At least Cardinal Becciu will have housing and an assured means of sustaining his human needs. That’s more than Francis afforded Cardinal Burke. Maybe the best punishment for Becciu would be to kick him out into the streets, strip him of his financial support and tell him to get out of Rome and return to wherever he came from. I do have in mind one other bishop who ought to vacate the Vatican precincts.
Having been born on the island of Sardinia, Beccui likely could exist substantively on a small island. Where is there a small island large enough to accommodate a table, toilet, and a tall banana tree or two? Bergoglio could visit the island’s periphery, maybe even keep Beccui perpetual company. Such digs could well be their best before Someone requires the two to move one last time.
You’ve made my day!
What has become of the millions and the apartment in London?
Do these dignitaries pack them for their post-mortem trip?
Vanitas vanitaties and omnia sunt vanitas.
The Pope approved these stooges. They should all go to jail for not buying ETFs! A fool and his money are soon parted…🤦🏼♂️ (All this episcopal incompetence reminds me of how the Texas Bishops lobby in Austin, save Strickland…)
“Prosecutors allege the second broker, Gianluigi Torzi, hoodwinked the Vatican by maneuvering to secure full control of the building that he relinquished only when the Vatican paid him off 15 million euros (with the Pope’s approval!)… a British judge rejected Vatican requests to seize Torzi’s assets — it was a negotiated exit from a legally binding contract…Torzi’s whereabouts weren’t immediately known.”
Have they looked for Torzi in the Cayman Islands? Maybe he paid Cecilia Marogna to join him for her “intelligence services?” Who knows, maybe they are with Australian friends, trying to free a nun on Seven Mile Beach?
What do you get for misleading the faithful into heresy? Mortal sin?
Jesus came to save the sinner, lest we forget.
There is that warning about leading the little ones to sin and a millstone would have been a better option
If the result is unfair may the Holy Father catch it in time and commute the sentence or quash the conviction.
This is beyond disgraceful, whoever is responsible – Becciu or Parra.
Has there been any comment from the Pope about this?