This will cause a stir. The New York Times reports that, in a private meeting with bishops in 2010, then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio endorsed the idea of civil unions for gay couples as an alternative to same-sex marriage.
The suggestion came in the context of debate over legalizing same-sex marriage in Argentina. Although Cardinal Bergoglio vehemently and publicly opposed the law, the Times reports, at a private meeting of the Catholic bishops conference he supported civil unions as a compromise–“the lesser of two evils,” according to the cardinal’s authorized biographer. According to the Times, this suggestion “inflamed” the meeting, and the conference voted down the suggestion. Argentina eventually legalized same-sex marriage.
The Times argues that “Cardinal Bergoglio’s readiness to reach out across the ideological spectrum and acknowledge civil unions for gay people could raise expectations that he would do the same as pope,” but concedes that Pope Francis may have less need, and ability, to compromise on the issue. Anyway, in political terms, civil unions seems to be an idea whose time has passed–it’s doubtful that gay rights supporters would settle for anything less than marriage at this point.
March 20th, 2013 | 11:22 am
As the PPACA debate shows, some will jump on this like the Heritage proposal. Apparently for some, if an innocent prisoner sentenced to penalty requests injection over the chair, that equates to being in support of injection.
March 20th, 2013 | 11:29 am
I always take New York Times reports of comments at private meetings with a grain of salt, but if this is true it would be something of a relief. To me, it’s not so much a matter of “the lesser of two evils,” but rather a matter of wondering whether it’s worth committing so much force to a losing battle. The real problem with the gay marriage debate is that the Church simply doesn’t have the moral authority to successfully oppose SSM in the public sphere — if She hasn’t managed to stem, or even reduce, rates of divorce, contraception and so forth amongst the faithful then there’s just no reasonable way to hope that She will have the clout to hold the line on same-sex unions outside of the faith.
March 20th, 2013 | 12:00 pm
Mark: I’m sure it’s INTENDED to cause a stir–why else would the NYT print it?–but do we have to play along? This article reads like the usual Times attempt to “construct the narrative” in advance, in the hopes that the subject will buckle under their intimidation when he makes decisions later on. If he doesn’t follow their narrative, then the Times has staked out its “We told you so” territory for future stories lamenting how a promising “pragmatist” succumbed to the dismal retrograde browbeating of the larger institution.
To drive the lesson home, and emphasize how the Times gets to write history’s first draft, they trot out poor Benedict, characterizing him not as the world’s foremost authority on Catholic teaching, but as “the church’s chief doctrinal enforcer … known for an unbending adherence to doctrinal purity.” Hipster Times readers will surely jump up on tables when they read that B16 “publicly condemned legal recognition of unmarried heterosexual couples, much less gay couples,” as if this was not evidence of his consistent understanding of marriage, and his humane application of that understanding to hetero- and homo-sexuals alike.
That’s the stick. The carrot offered to Francis comes in the quote from an observer of the “civil unions” meeting: “He didn’t want the church to take a position of condemning people but rather of respect for their rights like any vulnerable person.” B16 and JP2 made pastoral statements regarding homosexuality that would fit that description, though they’ll never get credit for it from the Times. But Francis COULD–if he sees the light and signs onto the approved narrative.
That’s how it works, and plenty of American pols have succumbed over time. The fact that the NYT is trying it with the pope shows more than their usual moxie.
March 20th, 2013 | 12:04 pm
If, I write IF, this is true, it is dreadful beyond belief, and shows in Cardinal Bergoglio the idea that the Church can and should compromise with the advocates of social evils, and support giving them half a loaf in the belief that they will be content with it — which, of course, they never are, or not for long. Cf. Luke 16:8b, “for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.”
March 20th, 2013 | 2:48 pm
Faced with the inevitability of legalizing same-sex relationships in Argentina, Cardinal Bergoglio decided to support civil protections for same-sex relationships while still protecting the institution of marriage.
I know many Catholics who think similarly. Is this line of thinking a sin? It is not endorsing same-sex marriage; it is acknowledging that if civil society is going to endorse some form of benefits to same-sex unions, then why not call them by another name and protect the traditinoal institution of marriage.
March 20th, 2013 | 2:49 pm
Setting aside NYT biases and the ambiguities that come with all translations, the idea itself, civil union, is not per se evil.
Suppose civil society wanted to enact a legal category called “Best Buds” and allow “best buds” to file joint income tax returns, be covered on each other’s insurance policies, be jointly responsible for each other’s credit card bills, and be exempt from testifying against one another. Such an idea might be good or bad, but it’s not evil per se. Well, so they called it “civil unions”; it was within the pale of considering.
It’s calling homosexual unions “marriage” that I think is intrinsically bad for law, civil society, and human well-being.
March 20th, 2013 | 4:51 pm
This is very disturbing if true. While in theory civil unions could be for used by chaste friends (“Best Buds”), we all know that that is not why civil union laws are adopted. Civil union laws are enacted for, and are used by, unmarried couples who, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are in sexual relationships. The Church should not be endorsing those arrangements.
March 20th, 2013 | 5:06 pm
The USCCB has consistently stated that support of civl unions is wrong and that civil uniosn arenever aceptable:
“Marriage is a unique good in itself. Nothing compares to the unique partnership of husband and wife, who through their sexual difference form a life-giving communion. No relationship between persons of the same sex can be the same as that between a man and a woman, nor should they ever be treated as analogous to marriage in any way. Thus, legal categories such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” that claim equivalent or analogous status to marriage are wrong and unjust, harmful both to the person and to society. Legal categories such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” should never be treated as analogous to marriage. Such legal approval of “civil unions” contributes to the erosion of the authentic meaning of marriage. As such, they are never acceptable. Basic human rights are not protected but violated by the erosion and redefinition of marriage.”
So, it’s no wonder that gay rights supporters would “settle for anything less than marriage at this point.” The civil unions proposal was rejected.
March 20th, 2013 | 5:26 pm
Joe, I think you overstate the USCCB’s position. Virtually all of it is plainly compatible with mine, and any area where it might not be is–I think all would grant now–a matter of prudence (and even of definition), not of principle. Anyway, that train has left the station. We’re in the fight for marriage now. And on that there can be no compromise.
March 20th, 2013 | 5:30 pm
We must hope from Pope Francis both charity and clarity and such charity that we can see more readily that clarity is charity too.
Let us pray that our pope will be fully alive to that realization, that clarity is charity too.
March 20th, 2013 | 5:45 pm
I offer the thoughts of the Vatican:
“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
I agree with Ed Peters. Bishops earlier taught that civil unions used to be intrinsically evil but now are no longer intrinsically evil.
March 20th, 2013 | 6:08 pm
The failure to pursue the civil union option is the most disastrous blunder by conservatives in recent memory.
Some may argue that it would’ve been ceding ground without stemming the tide. That’s possible but it wouldn’t have been any worse than what’s happening now.
March 20th, 2013 | 7:59 pm
How are civil unions intrinsically evil? A Civil Union is a political formulation that does not redefine marriage. Granted, as others have said, that train has left the station, but I do not think that Pope Francis’s stance on this supported something intrinsically evil.
March 20th, 2013 | 8:36 pm
I think one could endorse a “friendship union” as a better compromise, thus there is no moral aspect of homosexuality smuggled in the backdoor and it would probably give some benefit to people who’ve lived together a good chunk of their lives, for instance, two celibate spinsters.
March 20th, 2013 | 10:49 pm
With all due respect Mr.Peters, it is calling same-sex sexual relationships, or any sexual relationship that does not respect the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person, “Good”, that is in fact, bad, for law, civil society, and human well being, even if those involved in such acts consider themselves “Best Buds”, as a Best Bud, like a true friend, would only desire that which is Good for the other.
March 20th, 2013 | 10:56 pm
Has the Vatican published similar statements about divorce – that is, exhorting people to engage in civil disobedience in opposition to state-recognized divorce?
March 21st, 2013 | 12:09 am
One critical problem is that same-sex couples don’t function as friend-defined couples, or roommates: they function in the same ways as opposite-sex couples, ideally as romantic and sexual partners who build lives together.
March 21st, 2013 | 12:21 am
“Gay” as used in this context is a politics.
“Homosexual” is a lifestyle.
“Same-sex attraction” is a form of temptation.
There is no such thing as “gay marriage” and never can be – just as there is no “feminist marriage” nor “libertarian marriage”.
Finally, there is no such thing as a “same-sex marriage”. What Mark Movsesian is struggling to describe is a ‘same-sex sham marriage’.
March 21st, 2013 | 1:03 am
I highly doubt then-Cardinal Bergoglio was “advocating” civil unions as though he saw them as inherently good, desirable, or even morally neutral. I suspect he saw that the Church could find an easier way to work around the legal implications of civil unions than it would under the strictures of so-called “gay marriage.” He probably foresaw the likelihood of the Church losing the legal battle against “gay marriage” in Argentina, and thought that if the Government chose to only enforce civil unions, the Church could find an easier way to work around that law.
Anyone remember how Archbishop Levada handled things in San Francisco back in 1997? At that time, the City of San Francisco flatly ignored the Archbishop’s objections and passed a law that all companies had to provide the same benefits for domestic partners as for spouses. The Archbishop responded by stating that unmarried employees of the archdiocese could designate any person sharing the same address as their beneficiary (i.e.; mother, sister, friend, roommate). This complied with the statute while avoiding a privileged status for unmarried domestic partnerships.
Perhaps Cardinal Bergoglio had a similar strategy in mind when proposing the Argentinian government consider civil unions instead of “gay marriage”. This is quite a different thing than advocating homosexual (or unmarried heterosexual) civil unions as though the Church has no moral quibble with those arrangements.
Just my own speculation…
March 21st, 2013 | 1:41 am
It seems to me then-Cardinal Bergoglio was taking an approach similar to what Pope John Paul II discussed in the oft-quoted section 73 of Evangelium Vitae:
Supporting civil unions as an alternative to same-sex marriage, from Cardinal Bergoglio’s perspective, wouldn’t be actively supporting civil unions. It would be opposing same-sex marriage. Cardinal Bergoglio was engaging in politics, and that is how politics works.
March 21st, 2013 | 2:25 am
Most of what has been written are attempts to split hairs. A civil union doesn’t imply sexual relations, really?
This whole business stinks and amounted to overlooking sinful actions in the form of a delaying tactic that had no chance of succeeding and has now become a reality.
The bottom line is that homosexuals have no right to impose their views on the majority.
If Pope Francis indeed endorsed civil unions, then scandal has been given.
March 21st, 2013 | 4:45 am
Joe Mc…Faul quotes the USCCB to the effect that “legal categories such as ‘civil unions’ or ‘domestic partnerships’ that claim equivalent or analogous status to marriage are wrong and unjust, harmful both to the person and to society.”
But the legal incidents of civil unions or domestic partnerships differ greatly between different jurisdictions. The French PACS certainly does not create a status “equivalent or analogous” to marriage; indeed, it does not create a status at all, but is entirely concerned with the law of obligations. The fact that it has proved very popular with opposite-sex couples demonstrates this. In 2000, before their introduction, there were roughly 300,000 marriages a year; in 2010, there were 250,000 marriages and 200,000 PACSs.
This suggests that they are seen by many couples as an alternative, not to marriage, but to unregulated cohabitation – a more elaborate version of the old « Certificat de concubinage notoire »
March 21st, 2013 | 7:29 am
If this is true, we are in serious trouble, for Christ would never compromise The Word, nor would He assign personhood to sexual orientation, and thus sexually objectify the human person, in direct violation of God’s own Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery.
March 21st, 2013 | 7:37 am
And let us not forget, that if we are not following The God Who desires we overcome our disordered inclinations, including our disordered sexual inclinations, so that we are not led into temptation, but rather, sin no more, we are not following The True God, The God of our Salvation, The Communion of Perfect Love that Is The Blessed Trinity.
March 21st, 2013 | 11:18 am
It astonishes me that a number of people here believe they are better and more knowledgeable Catholics than the pope! Cardinal Bergoglio was in no way acting improperly to propose civil unions as a way of staving off same-sex marriage.
March 21st, 2013 | 11:41 am
Isn’t the greatest opposition to SSM in the developed West in France where they have civil unions? It’s a true civil union used by heterosexual couples and non-romantic roommates.
I don’t think most conservatives realize even now that the best result from the Supreme Court isn’t to uphold gay marriage bans. Those bans will be lifted by legislatures in time. The best result is for the Supreme Court to endorse civil unions. It can do that by declaring that gay couples are entitled to equal rights but not equal administrative categories.
March 21st, 2013 | 12:04 pm
I think the Church really has nothing to say about civil union; they belong to the State. The only thing the Church teaches touching on civil unions is that fornication is a sin. Am I right?
March 21st, 2013 | 12:05 pm
As far as I can see, the only potential scandal at the moment is our accepting the NY Times narrative spin that Pope Francis once “advocated” or “endorsed” civil unions instead of accepting the word of then-Cardinal Bergoglio’s authorized biographer who says the Cardinal viewed civil unions as the lesser of two evils.
March 21st, 2013 | 12:47 pm
John
You are quite right about France, where the legislation governing PACS is quite separate and, in many important respects, different from marriage. That is why opposite sex couples choose PACSs in large numbers – about four PACSs for every five marriages.
Also, in France, the debate over SSM has been closely linked to the question of adoption and assisted reproduction (neither of which is available to PACS partners, same-sex or opposite-sex) One cannot read an article on the subject, without encountering the neologism, « L’homoparentalité » Try googling it!
March 21st, 2013 | 1:35 pm
Anne,
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a document on June 3, 2003 (Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs) which has already been cited earlier by other commenters: Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
March 21st, 2013 | 2:51 pm
Bob:
“The bottom line is that homosexuals have no right to impose their views on the majority.”
Homosexuals aren’t imposing their views on the majority. How could they, population figures being what they are?
Rather, the majority has come to agree with homosexuals.
March 21st, 2013 | 4:22 pm
Tina Nair @ March 21st, 2013, 12:05 pm got it right. Readers ought to highlight it for future reference.
And joe mc..Faul @ March 20th, 2013, 5:06 pm has quoted the obvious pro-marriage view that is in accord with the teachings of the Church:
“Legal categories such as ‘civil unions’ or ‘domestic partnerships’ should never be treated as analogous to marriage. Such legal approval of ‘civil unions’ contributes to the erosion of the authentic meaning of marriage.”
Attaching civil union status to the hip of marital status is a legal fiction that is based on an outright rejection of the marriage idea and support for a specious substitution for marriage (aka S.S.M.).
There is no sound basis upon which to establish special status (marital status is a special status) for the sake same-sex sexual attraction, same-sex sexual behavior, or group identity (i.e. gay identity politics). No SSMer has managed to supply sound moral argumentation for such a basis. Instead they have asserted, arbitrarily, that the idealized Gay Relationship type be elevated above the rest of the one-sexed types of relationships (the vast swath of which is not gay nor sexualized) that populate the non-marriage category.
Remove the gay emphasis and the SSM idea is, like the civil union idea, not distinguishable from the rest of non-marriage in its many forms. On the other hand, the asserted gay emphasis does not provide a moral basis for special treatment over and above the other similarly situated types of relationships that are, also, not the union of husband and wife.
The NY Times is playing a game, a political game of capture the flag. They are wrong on the facts and wrong based on reason itself. So they fabricate what they cannot reason and what they cannot credibly establish as the view of Pope Francis. This is the pro-SSM campaign poisoning the well and adding yet another…
March 21st, 2013 | 11:09 pm
David, do you think Pope Francis is not aware that if one supports same-sex sexual unions, one is condoning same-sex sexual acts?
March 22nd, 2013 | 8:10 pm
I think that the drawbridge should be raised and the ramparts manned, those distracted types are not going to stop.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact