A Word on Papal Interviews

After every MSM kerfuffle on some amazing and innovative thing the Pope is rumored to have said, there are a sub-population of "faithful" Catholics who decide to critique (i.e., denigrate) either the papal delivery or the papal message or both.

"Why didn't he say X??!?" 
"How could he have been stupid enough to have said Y?!?"
"If he would only provide full context, explain more, stop being so opaque!"

Let me put this as simply as possible: the people who raise these objections are idiots.

I have done numerous TV, radio and newspaper interviews. The problem is not in the papal delivery, the problem is in the secular editor's hack job on the response.

I have personally had 10 and 20 minute interviews mangled down to a 15-second soundbite that even I barely recognized. When they don't like what you are saying, they abuse camera angles, set up ambush interviews, condense, cut and misrepresent you. If it's a newspaper, they literally make up stuff, put it in quotes and put it in your mouth.

And if you think the Vatican needs to offer clarifications, why do you think that would help? If the press is deliberately misrepresenting the first set of remarks, why would they suddenly stop the misrepresentations in reporting on subsequent remarks?

It is the editorial equivalent of being scourged and crucified. You started out fine, but after the editorial beating, you are barely recognizable as a living being. But that's the price of trying to get in front of a lot of people to preach the Gospel - you have to be willing to have your words crucified.

The Pope is willing to do that because he's the Vicar of Christ. It is our job to trust him and help put his message into the context of the larger Gospel message, of which it forms a part. It is NOT our job to critique his content or delivery. We need to concentrate on doing OUR job and stop critiquing how he does his. 

Stop talking like a bunch of Protestants and trust the Pope. Unlike you and me, he actually knows the Gospel and he preaches it better than either one of us ever will. He gets enough scourging every day from the jackels in the press, he doesn't need you and me piling on. 

Pope Francis and "Civil Unions"

Note from MercatorNet: 

Spanish-speakers are reporting that the Pope has been misquoted and misrepresented once again by the mainstream media — he did not even mention “civil unions”. His words were “convivencia civil”, not “unión civil”. This is best understood to mean that people with same-sex attraction should be protected legally by civil law, a protection which for the past 12 years has been in place in Australia since the radical changes made to 85 federal laws. So the Pope is talking about a civil coexistence and not the endorsement of same-sex unions.

 A friend has asked me if Pope Francis has changed Church teaching on homosexual marriage, as some news sites aver. The answer requires careful consideration.

To begin, I have read several reports on this, but haven't seen the complete transcripts so I'm not sure how accurate the report is. A Catholic news organization quotes him this way:

“I have always defended doctrine,” he said. “It is a contradiction to speak of homosexual marriage.”

But he also told the interviewer, “Homosexual persons have a right to be in the family; persons with a homosexual orientation have a right to be in the family and parents have the right to recognize a son or daughter as homosexual; you cannot throw anyone out of the family, nor make life impossible for them.”

In “A Future of Faith: The Path of Change in Politics and Society,” a book-length series of conversations with the French sociologist Dominique Wolton, the two spoke about gay marriage and civil unions in the context of a discussion about tradition, modernity and truth.

“‘Marriage’ is a historical word,” the pope said, in the book published in French in 2017. “Forever, throughout humanity and not only in the church, it’s been between a man and a woman. You can’t change it just like that. It’s the nature of things. That’s how they are. So, let’s call them ‘civil unions.'”

And here is where we can see the important distinctions being made.

“Marriage is between a man and a woman,” [Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio] said. “Secular states want to validate civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, driven by the need to regulate economic aspects between people, such as ensuring health care. These are cohabitation pacts of various kinds, of which I could not list the different forms.”

“It is necessary to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety,” he said, implying that some forms of civil unions would be acceptable.

In the early Church, St. Augustine, one of the greatest Doctors the Church ever produced, said it was permissible for the state to tolerate prostitution on the grounds that if it did not, "the whole world would be convulsed by lust." That is, we tolerate a lesser evil in order to prevent it from becoming a greater evil. 

St. Thomas Aquinas, arguably the greatest Doctor the Church ever produced, agreed with St. Augustine. Thomas used the same reasoning: "In human government . . . those who are in authority rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus Augustine says: “If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.” Hence, though unbelievers sin in their rites, they may be tolerated, either on account of some good that ensues therefrom, or because of some evil avoided."

Pope Francis has long opposed allowing the state to recognize homosexual marriage, arguing that this is a contradiction in terms - marriage is about the making of a mater, a mother.  By definition, homosexual marriages cannot make anyone a mother, so it is as impossible to have a homosexual marriage as it is to have a round circle. But, in order to avoid having the state call these partnerships "marriages", he was, as cardinal, willing to allow them to be called "civil unions." As Pope, it is possible he continues to follow the tradition of St. Augustine and St. Thomas by allowing the secular state to call this a "civil union" in order to keep the secular state from leading people astray by incorrectly labeling it a "marriage." But, as the note from MercatorNet points out, he didn't even mention "civil unions".

Now, some might say this is a distinction without a difference. Would it be a distinction without a difference to say that it is licit for the state to allow prostitution? Two of the greatest Doctors the Church ever produced said exactly that. Nor is this the first time the Church has faced secular society condoning homosexual unions. Ancient Rome and Greece were both debauched enough to give these unions legal status. Ancient Christians faced exactly the same issue we face today. Precisely because Catholics have failed to evangelize the culture for the last several centuries, secular society has devolved back into pre-Christian lawlessness.

But even so, "legal" does not mean "moral". There is a significant difference between those two phrases. That is what Pope Francis is emphasizing. 

He wants people legally protected, without necessarily saying that what they are doing is moral. God allows the sinner to live, He doesn't strike the sinner dead, even though we certainly deserve that punishment when we commit mortal sin. Instead, He protects us from the consequence of the sin. That's what the Pope is doing here - encouraging the state to act towards homosexuals as God acts towards all of us by encouraging the state to make sure that even mortal sinners are protected, at least in some measure, from the consequences of their sins.

Is homosexual "love" really love? Of course not.
Are homosexual relationships still intrinsically disordered? Of course.

But that doesn't change the fact that persons suffering from the intrinsic disorder of homosexual attraction (or the intrinsic disorder of lust in general), like every other person, are still human beings, deserving or respect and protection. God lets the rain fall on the just and the unjust. He lets His mercy fall on all, regardless of their sins. The Pope would like the state to emulate God in this.

UPDATE:

I have been exhorted by various friends to read the rabidly anti-Catholic commentary generated by many "Catholic" pundits attacking the Holy Father's remarks. I decline to do so because none of the commentators have the authority to question the Pope, either in what he teaches or in how it is taught. Indeed, the very existence of the screeds remind me of the Abbott and Costello comedy sketch in the Gospel of Matthew (Ch 16):

"5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. 6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”

8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?"

These pundits entirely miss the point. None of them are guides. We must instead, follow the advice of the Doctors of the Church:

“Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.” — St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: “The Book of Obedience”, Chapter 1: “There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope”). 

As Catholics, our job is not to critique the Pope's content and delivery, but to properly contextualize his message within the larger message of Christ's Church. This sometimes requires hard, careful thought on our part. Stop grumbling amongst yourselves and get to work. In his method of teaching Christ's Vicar is often like unto Christ Himself. If you remember, Jesus taught many hard things, some almost impossible to understand, yet Peter had the right of it, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You alone have the words of eternal life." 

So, again, our job is not to critique the Pope's delivery or message. Our job is to provide the proper context for the Pope's message, showing people where his message fits within the larger Gospel message. How about we do OUR job?