Last week’s biggest religion news item budged from Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s religious beliefs to another part of the Roman Catholic world: A film that had actual quotes from the pontiff about same-sex civil unions.
Being that Pope Francis hasn’t made a lot of pronouncements on the topic during his seven years in the pontificate, his suddenly firm stance lent some clarity — if not agreement — on one of the most culturally divisive issues of our time.
Oh, but wait a minute. There’s some confusion out there. Folks are posting signs in St. Peter’s Square asking the pope to clarify church doctrine on marriage and sexuality.
For instance, on Saturday, America magazine reported that the papal quotes were actually remarks from a 2019 television interview that hasn’t been made public until now. And that they were spliced in weird ways to say something the pope might not have meant to say.
And on Sunday, the New Yorker came out with a very decent analysis that told the pope to get serious about sending out a clear message. It’s a confusing tangle out there.
The result is total confusion over at the Vatican, surrounded by a blitz of celebratory tweets and headlines from the Catholic left. Again.
Did Francis really say anything different than what he’s said all along? First, the basics from the Catholic News Agency:
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.
The above was partial quotes from two different questions, but the movie doesn’t tell us that.
“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 key word there may be “legally.” In other words, this is a government thing — not a Catholic thing.
I’m going to give a sample of how other media outlets first covered this. From Claire Giangravé of Religion News Service:
Pope Francis spoke in favor of civil unions for LGBTQ couples in a documentary presented in Rome on Wednesday (Oct. 21), departing from official church teaching for the first time as pontiff.
But are civil unions a real departure, something that is addressed in the Catholic Catechism?
Same-sex marriage, yes. But civil unions? Giangravé includes an insight from a former GetReligionista a few paragraphs down.
It would be a mistake to interpret the pope’s recent comments as a shift in the Catholic Church’s position toward homosexuality, according to Dawn Eden Goldstein, a Catholic author who has taught in seminaries and holds a doctorate in sacred theology.
“The Holy Father is not saying that same-sex civil unions qualify as marriage or that they are in any way comparable to it,” Goldstein said in a statement sent to Religion News Service on Wednesday. “The pope’s words about civil unions change nothing about the way the Church perceives such unions on a moral or doctrinal level.”
Then there is the following is from Jason Horowitz of the New York Times:
ROME — Pope Francis expressed support for same-sex civil unions in remarks revealed in a documentary film that premiered on Wednesday, a significant break from his predecessors that staked out new ground for the church in its recognition of gay people.
The remarks, coming from the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, had the potential to shift debates about the legal status of same-sex couples in nations around the globe and unsettle bishops worried that the unions threaten what the church considers traditional marriage — between one man and one woman.
Unlike Giangravé, Horowitz isn’t claiming that Francis has changed church teaching.
Big difference there. The question is whether this changes the actions of priests and bishops.
Francis has a tendency for making off-the-cuff public remarks, a trait that maddens both supporters and critics alike. The comments shown in the film are likely to generate exactly the sort of discussion the pope has repeatedly sought to foster on issues once considered forbidden in the church’s culture wars.
Francis had already drastically shifted the tone of the church on questions related to homosexuality, but he has done little on policy and not changed teaching for a church that sees its future growth in the Southern Hemisphere, where the clerical hierarchy is generally less tolerant of homosexuality.
Three reporters at the Washington Post tried to analyze the whole thing:
As the pope’s words about gay couples spread to audiences around the world, it wasn’t just his support for the creation of civil unions that stood out. It was his embrace of same-sex couples as part of a family unit — an image that goes beyond a person’s individual legal rights. …
The recognition, from one of the most prominent and revered figures in the world, underscores the massive global shift in public opinion on gay rights, a transformation that social scientists say is unlike any other of our time. And some experts on public opinion say the pope’s position could help move attitudes toward acceptance in countries where gay rights have lagged.
The word “family” is important.
So, has there been a papal mind change at some point? If so, why weren’t the bishops informed instead of changes being leaked out in a low-brow movie? One, the bishop of Kazakhstan, is pleading with Francis to reverse his stance “for the sake of your soul.”
One thing most writers aren’t saying is how unscripted this pope is; how he lets loose with what seems like major changes in doctrine or practice without any warning to his fellow prelates. If any of us in our given workplaces tried to pull such a stunt, we’d be out of work.
So when Francis is not staying on message, what import should writers attach to such revelations?
The Post also assembled a compendium of Francis’ remarks over the past decade on gay issues. Father Thomas Reese of RNS said the real impact of Francis’ words won’t be in the West, but in places like Africa where homosexual acts can be punishable by death. The following paragraphs hit the mark:
Many African bishops, however, will not be pleased by the pope’s words. Even if they are sympathetic to LGBTQ persons, they know that most of their people are not.
Supporting civil unions in many African countries will open the church to attack from conservative imams and Christian clergy. In countries where religious tensions are inflamed, this is not a problem the bishops want.
If there is major pushback on the pope’s words, it will come from Africa. Remember how LGBTQ issues have fractured the Anglican Communion in Africa.
Having covered in detail the breakup of the Anglican Community in the aughts and the founding of competing Anglican bodies headed by overseas (mostly African) bishops, I think Reese is onto something. Christian leaders all over Africa are dealing with Muslims who will be quick to accuse Christians of moral lassitude on sexuality.
Reese also reminded his readers, which include a lot of religion reporters, that Francis is talking about civil law, not church dogma, doctrine or canon law.
Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, both doctors of the church, taught that not all morality should be enshrined in the law. Both, for example, believed that it was foolish to outlaw prostitution because the law would not be observed.
John Paul and Benedict in their times made the prudential judgment that civil unions were a bad idea. Times have changed.
I wonder if Benedict XVI, now in his Vatican enclave, would agree with that.
Some say the media needs to look into how the movie was filmed, such as the Rev. Matthew Schneider, a Patheos.com columnist (“Through Catholic Lenses”) and Legionaries of Christ priest in the Philadelphia area who wrote last year about being autistic.
I skimmed his complex essay — released on Thursday — on how Francis’ videotaped remarks were edited to say what he really didn’t say; essentially the same thing America said two days later.
Francis didn’t just out-and-out approve civil unions, he wrote. Instead, the pope approved them as a replacement for something much worse; being that gay marriages, in the view of the church, aren’t marriages in any sense of the word.
From this variety of sources, it seems clear that Francis was likely already for allowing civil unions as an alternative to “gay marriage” not as something good in itself. Civil unions are much like an abortion bill making it legal before 12 weeks but illegal after. If abortion is currently fully illegal, this is a bad bill, but if abortion is currently fully legal restricting it is a good bill. Pope Francis seems to see civil unions for homosexual couples in a similar light: not the ideal but preferable to “gay marriage.” I think this is a reasonable prudential judgment within Catholic teaching.
Dissecting papal remarks, especially on deadline, is beyond tricky and when I was covering this beat full time, I didn’t always do the best job of it. What’s odd, too, is that Francis isn’t giving any press conferences to clarify his position nor is he — as far as I know — explaining things to his bishops.
So his own staff, not to mention journalists, are left to ferret through past speeches and writings to get to what he’s really saying. And now there’s this film, which has never-before-seen footage of the papal mindset and what appears to be a pivot from church doctrine.
But if you read the America essay closely, you’ll see how the director cut and pasted Francis’ words in a way that did some violence to the topic. When print reporters do this, they put elipses in the quotes to show there were words left out. But film does not do this.
I am curious whose idea it was to give out the unedited footage — with the controversial remarks included — to this filmmaker. The result is a lot of confusion among Catholics. Speaking from the Catholic left, the America essay sees no problem with this:
Pope Francis speaks freely, sometimes to the dismay of some cardinals, bishops and Vatican officials who would prefer him to use a carefully prepared script and that the Holy See retain total editorial control and copyright over what he says. Francis, however, prefers his freedom of speech and spontaneity, even at the risk of misspeaking sometimes or being misinterpreted. Not infrequently, he upsets those whom he calls “the doctors of the law.”
But words matter. Reese points out that if the pope is OK with civil unions, is he also OK with the children that may come from them? He adds:
On Nov. 4, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a case involving a Catholic foster care agency that has been denied city funds because it will not sponsor children with gay married couples. If the church no longer has a problem with gay couples raising children, then the case is moot.
Watch to see if attorneys for the city bring up the pope’s seeming change of heart on this topic. Its lawyers would be foolish if they didn’t. On the other side, leaders of Catholic Social Services –- the agency in question -– must be tearing their hair at the moment over this matter.
This point was not lost on the Washington Post editorial board which last Thursday brought up that exact case to argue that even the pope has changed his mind on the issue.
The case will be argued the day after the presidential election, so be on the watch for whether Supreme Court justices grill Catholic Social Services on this exact point. And look for exasperated bishops ready to spill the beans on how they wish this pope would stay on message. They’re out there. Go look for them, starting in dioceses in the heartland.