Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

Mainstream media goes gaga over Pope Francis and same-sex civil unions

Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

ROME, March 7, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – As I do most mornings, one of the first things I did today was put the search terms “Pope Francis” into Google. This morning the offerings from the mainstream media, and a fair chunk of the blogosphere, is along the lines of “Pope Francis leaves door open for civil unions!” Ah, there must have been another interview, I thought. Here we go again…

Sure enough, yesterday Corriere della Sera, one of Italy’s mainstream daily papers published another “wide-ranging” interview with Pope Francis, and the usual round of arguments, disputes and triumphant whoops exploded over what the pope said, didn’t say, was mistranslated or misinterpreted or misrepresented as saying, in the press and the blogosphere.

An English translation was provided Wednesday by Zenit, which gave the money quote as:

Many countries have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?

Holy Father: Marriage is between one man and one woman. The secular States want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of coexistence, spurred by the need to regulate economic aspects between persons as, for instance, to ensure healthcare. Each case must be looked at and evaluated in its diversity.

There was other stuff in there that might cause the scrupulous and observant to take a few sharp inward breaths, but for the press, that was THE one.

The Vatican, in the person of Fr. Thomas Rosica, issued a quick statement yesterday responding to the inevitable feeding frenzy, calling the matter of homosexual civil unions “delicate,” but failing to actually clarify that Pope Francis would not now or at any time approve either “civil unions” or homosexual behaviour.

“The Pope did not choose to enter into debates about the delicate matter of gay civil unions,” Rosica said. “In his response to the interviewer, he emphasized the natural characteristic of marriage between one man and one woman, and on the other hand, he also spoke about the obligation of the state to fulfill its responsibilities towards its citizens.”

“We should not try to read more into the Pope’s words than what has been stated in very general terms,” he added. And as might be expected, this “clarification” was roundly ignored. So, if we can’t look to the Press Office for a clarification, then where?

Terence Weldon, at his always-entertaining Queering the Church blog, set the tone. Weldon, who is a vigilant Vatican-watcher as well as a leading figure in the Catholic wing of the UK’s homosexualist movement, was hot off the mark yesterday – before there was a reliable English translation – with the headline “Has Pope Francis Signalled Support for Civil Unions?” He led with: “Cardinal Bergoglio’s name is already included, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, in the growing list of senior bishops and cardinals who have expressed some form of support for same – sex civil unions, but it’s too soon to add his name as Pope Francis.” But today’s interview with Corierre della Sera, he adds, “indicate[s] that may soon change.”

To this introductory shot, Weldon followed up today with a somewhat more sober, “Pope Francis Has NOT ‘Supported’ Civil Unions – but Catholic Thinking Continues to Evolve.” Citing Zenit’s complete English translation, Weldon writes, “Francis holds back from a blanket endorsement, for the simple reason that the term ‘civil union’ means many different things, taking different forms in different jurisdictions.” Fair enough, I guess, but then we have: “Nevertheless, these extremely cautious words represent the beginnings of some evolution in formal, institutional Catholic thinking.”

Francis’ statement that “each case must be looked at and evaluated in its diversity,” Weldon says, “is indirectly encouraging open discussion, debate and listening.” He takes it as a good sign of things to come from this pontificate, and contrasts it favourably with the statements from Benedict XVI and John Paul II. And so do quite a few other people.

Whatever the pope actually meant by the comment, it is difficult to argue with a man like Terence Weldon on optics. This, from the point of view of homosexualist activists, and their fellow-travelers in media and politics, is what the pope appears to have meant. Even if the Church can never actually approve civil unions, as the Vatican’s magisterial text on the issue states, when it comes to the culture war, optics count a great deal.

The Terence Weldon interpretation has been taken up by media and activist organizations (yes, there’s a difference, technically) as the official one. We have confirmation from the New York Daily News, as only one among the multitudes, who included a video interview from a local New York television station with the vice president of Dignity USA, the homosexualist group that is doing more or less the same work as Terence Weldon.

Lewis Speaks-Tanner told WPIX New York that the comment was “very encouraging” because the pope “actually used the word ‘civil union’ and he opened the doors to continue dialogue, which no pope has actually said before.”

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

CNN’s religion blog said much the same thing, with “Pope Francis: Church could support civil unions” as did USA Today, with “Pope Francis leaves door open for same-sex unions.” Time magazine, that bellwether of popularity-for-the-wrong-reasons, gave us: “Pope Francis Willing To ‘Evaluate’ Civil Unions, But No Embrace of Gay Marriage.”

And it goes on and on… Huffington Post: “Pope Francis Suggests Gay Civil Unions May Be Tolerable By Church”; ThinkProgress: “Pope Francis Suggests Support For Civil Unions.” Et cetera.

And lest we think that this is merely wishful thinking on the part of an anti-Catholic secular press, we have the Catholic News Service, the official media arm of the US Bishops’ Conference, tweeting, “Pope, in interview, suggests church could tolerate some civil unions.”

And what has been the response, editorially speaking? Time, which has already named Francis its “Person of the Year,” was perhaps the most succinct today about that, summing it up as, “Pope Francis the Popular.”

While the MSM seems only to be concerned with the pope and gays, there is a lot more going on here. Pope Francis answered questions on a stream of “hot-button” Catholic issues, including (translating the politely coded language) female ordination, divorce, abortion and contraception. And as before, there were comments in this latest interview that have a lot of people worried.

I know (from the flurry of emails and Facebook messages I received) that I am not the only one who noticed that he talked about contraception and Humanae Vitae, for example, in the same way that Cardinal Kasper talked the other day about the indissolubility of marriage: that it is a wonderful, unchangeable doctrine of the Faith, “prophetic” and given to us by the highest possible authorities…but…

Did I feel a faint whisper of Winnipeg’s cold breeze blowing in my ear when I read this?

It all depends on how the text of ‘Humanae Vitae’ is interpreted. Paul VI himself, towards the end, recommended to confessors much mercy and attention to concrete situations…The object is not to change the doctrine, but it is a matter of going into the issue in depth and to ensure that the pastoral ministry takes into account the situations of each person and what that person can do.

I keep wondering if anyone close to him is speaking to him, privately and perhaps urgently, telling him that whatever his intentions, the world is watching and is deeply pleased with everything he’s saying. And it’s not the nice, friendly world, the cheering Catholics who greet him at the Wednesday audiences. It’s those “wolves” some of us remember another pope mentioning once on a memorable occasion. These unknown advisors, in my imagination, might indeed be telling him something more or less like this from Time:

…once again, reminded the world that his papacy seeks to welcome gays, not to judge. It pointed to his desire to see a church of pastors, not of doctrinaires. It was a loud echo of the five most famous words of his papacy so far: “Who am I to judge.

He uttered them in reply to a reporter’s question on gays in an impromptu press conference last July. Even that brief gesture of increased compassion from the Holy See sent shockwaves through global Catholic communities, and it signified the shift in tone that put Francis on the cover of LGBT magazine The Advocate’s as their 2013 Man of the Year.

They might mention that a Pew research poll found Pope Francis is overwhelmingly approved by American Catholics and non-Catholics. All the world loves him: 85 percent of adult Catholics in the U.S. say they have a favorable view of him. 71 percent of U.S. Catholics said he “represents a major change in the direction of the Catholic Church,” and only 2 percent say that change is for the worse. More than half of American non-Catholics say, “Francis is a change for the better.”

Perhaps these imaginary saintly advisors might mention that with approval ratings far ahead of any other world leader, it could be difficult to recall that popularity with the world is not the best possible sign for a pope, scripturally speaking. I’m reminded of that old Christian axiom, borne out by the blood of the martyred popes of the first three hundred years of Christianity. It is not “popularity” with the “non-Catholic” world, and with a world in which almost no Catholics know anything about their faith, that is “the seed of the Church.”

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.”

I noted also in the interview that Pope Francis says he consults and visits with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, that he values the latter’s advice as a family should value the wisdom of a grandfather. May we hope that his predecessor will be able to lend him a copy of a document he published in 1986? The one that said, quite clearly and unambiguously, that “increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity.”

And that “departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.”

Red alert! Last call.

Please support fearless pro-life and pro-family reporting. Donate to our summer campaign today.


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

, ,

Opposing gay ‘marriage’ may demand civil disobedience: Louisiana bishop

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

LAFAYETTE, LA, June 29, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The bishop of the Catholic diocese of Lafayette, Louisiana, is one of the nation’s Church leaders to come out strongly against the Supreme Court decision forcing all 50 states to recognize homosexual “marriage.”

Bishop Michael Jarrell reminded Catholics in a statement that the judiciary does not have the power to redefine marriage, and he opened the door to civil disobedience as a possible response to the June 26 Supreme Court ruling.

“Let me state very plainly that no human court has the authority to change what God has written into the law of creation,” Bishop Jarrell wrote in his statement. “This ruling is irreconcilable with the nature and definition of marriage as established by Divine Law.”

Urge Congress to pass a marriage protection amendment now. Sign the petition!

“The marital covenant was established by God with its own proper nature and laws,” he continued.

Recognizing the tide of religious persecution across the country against those who hold the Biblical view of marriage, Bishop Jarrell addressed the issue of living one’s Catholic faith in light of the Supreme Court decision, and gave the green light to refuse to comply, even if it means breaking the law.

“I realize that this ruling will create conscience problems for many Catholics, especially those in public office,” Bishop Jarrell said. “In some cases civil disobedience may be a proper response.”

In an exercise of episcopal authority, the Lafayette prelate also issued a mandate that no representative of the diocese would enable homosexual “marriage” in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.

“No priest or deacon of this Diocese may participate in the civil solemnization or celebration of same-sex marriage,” he declared. “No Catholic facility or property, including but not limited to parishes, missions, chapels, meeting halls, Catholic educational, health or charitable institutions, or facilities belonging to benevolent orders may be used for the solemnization of same-sex marriage.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

The bishop also cautioned against Catholics showing support for homosexual “marriage” by their presence at same-sex “wedding.”

“All Catholics are urged not to attend same-sex ceremonies,” he said.

The bishop said he hoped this October’s Ordinary Synod on the Family at the Vatican would address issues brought about by “the alteration of the traditional law about marriage.”

Bishop Jarrell also expressed deep sadness at the Supreme Court ruling, and said while Catholics have great respect for everyone as children of God, the justices’ decision had no legal or moral foundation.

“As Catholics we have a profound respect for the dignity of all God’s children,” he stated. “Nevertheless there is no basis in law or in nature for altering the traditional definition of marriage, established by God from the beginning.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

Catholic News Service gives platform to head of union that gave hundreds of millions to pro-abort politicians

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

June 29, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The news service of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has published an article by the head of an organization that has given hundreds of millions of dollars to elect pro-abortion politicians.

Americans should listen to Pope Francis, at least when it comes to his message on poverty and economics, according to Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, an organization that has done arguably more to elect pro-abortion politicians than any other group in the last 50 years.

The union chief made his case in a June 22 guest column for Catholic News Service (CNS).

The AFL-CIO donated $200 million to Democratic politicians in 2008 alone.

LifeSiteNews contacted Catholic News Service about Trumka’s column in light of the AFL-CIO’s support for abortion, contraception, and homosexual “marriage," but CNS declined to comment.

On his way in the piece to pronouncing unity between the Church and big labor, Trumka touts Pope Francis’s recently reported high approval rating and the “newfound vigor” the Roman Catholic Church has added to its “traditional social doctrine” since his election.

“For much of the last century and more, the labor movement and the Catholic Church have stood together in solidarity for people who labor for a living,” he wrote in the CNS column. “Pope Francis lives and breathes this tradition.”

“Together, the Catholic Church and the labor movement stand for a new moral and political order,” he said.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

In his June 22 piece for Catholic News Service he wrote about helping to ease the pain and suffering for others as his reasons for praising Pope Francis.

“We believe in the duty to ease pain and to offer comfort to those who are suffering -- and not just with kind words, but with action,” Trumka opined. “That is why I am so heartened by our Holy Father Pope Francis.

Trumka, raised Catholic, writes his column for CNS with a Catholic voice, but the union he heads up supports contraception and homosexual “marriage,” along with abortion.
 

While the Church today holds The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers among its themes of Catholic Social Teaching, giving voice in the Bishops’ own news agency to the representative of an organization which has given hundreds of millions of dollars to pro-abortion politicians contradicts the USCCB’s very own document teaching on the need for Catholics to act in support of Catholic principles and policies in public life.

 

“The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles,” the USCCB’s Catholics in Political Life states. “They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

 

The nation’s top union also supports the so-called “free” birth control imposed as part of the HHS mandate, something many groups – including the USCCB itself – resisted being forced to provide.

“Women have fought hard for the right to safe, legal reproductive health services and the freedom to exercise that right,” the AFL-CIO Statement on Women's Access to Quality and Affordable Reproductive Health Care says. “The Affordable Care Act provides that women will receive preventative health care benefits, including FDA-approved methods of birth control, without co-pays or deductibles.”

Many of those forms of “birth control” may act as abortifacients.

The AFL-CIO’s support for abortion and birth control isn’t where the union’s advocacy for anti-Catholic initiatives stops. It encompasses homosexual activism as well.

Pride At Work is a nonprofit organization that represents LGBT union members and their “allies,” that “organizes mutual support between the organized Labor Movement and the LGBT Community to further social and economic justice.”

Pride at Work is an officially recognized constituency group of the AFL-CIO

The deeds of the AFL-CIO as an organization are not the sole illustration of how Trumka’s CNS appearance sends a conflicting message with regard to Church principles, but also statements embracing and advocating principles in direct contrast to the faith by the man himself.

“Working people believe in equality and fairness and that’s why we are happy to stand with millions of Americans and with President Obama in supporting marriage equality,” Trumka said in a statement supporting homosexual “marriage.”

When the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 defending marriage were overturned, he said they never should have been adopted in the first place.

“The Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 were radical and divisive laws that never should have been,” Trumka said. “Now, we can begin to fully clear the dark legal cloud that has hung over our nation.”

Trumka employs a childhood anecdote to frame his article complete with violence against his grandfather on the part of the profit-focused mining company that “owned everything,” in his Pennsylvania hometown.

“Pope Francis speaks for the church I grew up in when he calls for an organized moral response to the injustices of modern capitalism,” stated Trumka, whose salary level is around $300,000 per year according to unionfacts.com.

Trumka has been implicated in encouraging intimidation and deception to advance union goals, according to a report from the National Legal and Policy Center.

Trumka has also been accused of legitimizing violence. During a multi-state coal miners’ strike organized by the United Mine Workers in 1993, Trumka, as union president, ordered more than 17,000 miners to walk off the job, and explicitly told strikers to "kick the s--- out of" employees and mine operators defying union demands.

Homes were vandalized, shots were fired at a mine office, and power was cut to one mine, temporarily trapping 93 miners underground.

A non-union contractor, Eddie York, was murdered by a union member, shot in the back of the head as he drove past strikers at a West Virginia work site. Those trying to rescue the victim were attacked by a group of union members. The union member who shot the contractor went to jail, but no one else was disciplined for what took place.

Trumka told Virginian-Pilot in September 1993 regarding the incident, “I’m saying if you strike a match and you put your finger in it, you’re likely to get burned.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ryan Rodrick Beiler / Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

,

Supreme Court suspends Texas law that would have closed half of its abortion facilities

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 29, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – About half of the abortion facilities in Texas got a reprieve from the Supreme Court on its last day in session.

Justices ruled 5-4 that, right now, the state of Texas may not enforce health protection laws that would have put all but nine of the state's abortion offices out of business. The court's conservative bloc – Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito – objected, but Anthony Kennedy cast the decisive vote with the court's liberals.

At issue is whether the state may require abortionists to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and require abortion facilities to meet the same health and safety codes as other ambulatory surgical centers.

The temporary stay of Senate Bill 5 lasts until the justices decide whether they will hear an appeal from the abortion industry, which argues the law's provisions would unduly restrict a woman's access to abortion-on-demand.

“The U.S. Supreme Court was swayed, not for the first time in a week, by illogical arguments,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America. “By actively lobbying against common sense regulations that would make sure women have access to ‘safe, legal and rare’ abortions, Planned Parenthood and their allies are making a mockery of women’s health care.”

“The abortion industry cares only for their bottom line, and women and their prenatal children are merely dollar signs in their business cycle,” Hawkins said.

"Women and babies are being denied protections with the Supreme Court blocking pro-life legislation,” said Lila Rose of Live Action. “Contrary to what big abortion organizations would have us believe, the possible closure of abortion facilities is due to the refusal of these corporations to adhere to sensible and ordinary medical precautions. We look forward to the day that both the legislature and the Courts use their power to protect the most vulnerable among us."

State pro-life leaders regret the loopholes that they say put women's health at risk.

“Unfortunately, women who do not have abortions at any of the nine operating ambulatory surgical centers that perform abortions will continue to be subjected to substandard medical care,” said Joe Pojman, Ph.D., executive director of Texas Alliance for Life.

The ruling does not permanently enjoin the state. It does not even guarantee justices will hear the case.

Should they decline, the law will go into effect in its entirety.

Last October, the Supreme Court allowed Texas to implement these measures while the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals considered its decision in a 6-3 verdict. However, it added that the state must allow abortion facilities in El Paso and McAllen to operate subpar operations, defying greater protections for women, because closing those facilities would require women to drive a great distance to the next nearest abortion facility.

Earlier this month, a three-panel judge of the appeals court, based in New Orleans, upheld the health regulations. All three judges had been appointed by President George W. Bush.

Had the full requirements gone into effect, half of all the remaining abortion facilities in Texas would have closed.

The left-wing website ThinkProgress worried, if the High Court upheld the decision, it would mean that “Roe v. Wade is almost entirely dead.”

Today, representatives of the abortion lobby felt relief. "Our Constitution rightly protects women from laws that would create barriers to safe and legal abortion care, but Texas politicians have tried to sneak around the Constitution with sham regulations designed to close clinics’ doors," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a pro-life Republican, vowed to “continue to fight for higher-quality health care standards for women while protecting our most vulnerable – the unborn.”

“I’m confident the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold this law,” he added.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook