Pope Francis on Homosexual Unions
BY Jimmy Akin
| Posted 3/20/13 at 10:51 PM
What are we to make of this?
According to press accounts, back in 2010 when the Argentine government was in the process of approving homosexual "marriage," then-Cardinal Bergoglio suggested the possibility of civil unions for homosexuals as a way of keeping homosexual marriage from being made legal.
He was absolutely adamant on the impermissibility of homosexual marriage, stating:
In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family…
At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God's law engraved in our hearts.
This is not simply a political struggle, but an attempt to destroy God's plan. It is not just a bill but a move of the Father of Lies, who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."Apparently, his discussion of civil unions occurred in a meeting among the Argentine bishops in which they were strategizing how to block homosexual marriage.
The others, apparently, voted against Cardinal Bergoglio's suggestion, and it wasn't acted on publicly.
Some, including a homosexual activist, have said that the cardinal discussed it with them in private, however.
The same voices have also been contrasting this approach with the inflexible approach of Pope Benedict.
Let's deal first with the core issue and then the spin that's being put on it.
Among other things, it states:
The Church teaches 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.So the Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons "cannot lead in any way to approval" of civil unions or, worse yet, homosexual "marriage."
The position reportedly advanced in 2010 by then-Cardinal Bergoglio would seem to be at variance with this . . . or would it?
The Church teaches that respect for the rights of women cannot lead in any way to approval of abortion or to legal recognition of a right to abortion.That would be a fair summary of Church teaching.
But would it follow from this statement that a Catholic politician could never vote for a law that has provisions allowing for abortion?
[W]hen it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality.
This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects [no. 73].So the Church acknowledges that there are situations in which a Catholic can support a law that contains abortion provisions provided there is no way to completely get rid of these, provided his opposition to abortion is known, and provided he is trying to limit the harm that the law is doing.
This is similar to the case of pro-lifers in America endorsing various legal restrictions on abortion (e.g., de-funding it, informed consent, fetal pain laws, zoning laws, parental consent, partial-birth abortion bans) as a way of limiting the harm of abortion, given that it's impossible to get rid of it in one swoop.
Can this kind of reasoning apply to homosexual unions?
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth.
If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided [Evangelium Vitae 73].
This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.
After all, it would be vastly harder to roll back a homosexual marriage law once it's in force than to stop it from coming into force.
If the only way to stop it from coming into force would be to tolerate a less-bad form of legal recognition then that would seem permissible.
He may have floated the idea to his fellow bishops, who ultimately decided that it wasn't the way to go on the issue.
He may have mentioned it privately in discussions with homosexual activists, as a kind of trial balloon, to see if they would be willing to accept it in place of homosexual marriage.
It's hard to know what happened in these situations, and I'm not going to take an activist's word about what happened in a private discussion of which we have no transcript. It's too easy for partisans to slant what may have been said--or even engage in outright fabrications.
I prefer to go with what a person has chosen to say in public, on record, in a verifiable way.
If he privately floated the idea of civil unions as a way of stopping full-blown homosexual marriage, I would see this as a last, desperate expedient and not suppose that he viewed such unions as a positive thing, just as a less-horrible thing.
I certainly wouldn't see it as evidence that he was "seeking compromise" or being "flexible" or open to "dialogue" on established moral principles.
I would instead assume that he was trying to prevent an even worse situation from coming about and seeking to apply to the particular situation in Argentina the principles the Magisterium had already established.
If you're not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.
I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict said about the book of Revelation.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
Just email me at firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any difficulty.
In the meantime, what do you think?
Copyright © 2013 EWTN News, Inc. All rights reserved.