A 2003 document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith expressed opposition to civil unions for same-sex couples, saying that "respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions."
The film's portrayal of a papal endorsement of same-sex unions did not change Church teaching, or alter the Church's understanding of the nature of homosexual acts. But Francis's apparent call for legal "cover" for same-sex unions would represent a shift in the prudential judgement of public policy options made by his predecessors.
Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth also responded to the film's release, saying that "the Church is obliged to hand on faithfully what she has received from Christ. It is the mind of Christ that marriage is an indissoluble bond between one man and one woman. The Church preaches and acts upon this truth, regardless of the passing opinions of nations, states, or cultures."
Noting that Pope Francis has repeatedly affirmed the Church's unchanging position that marriage exists, and can only exist, between one man and one woman, Olson said that "comments recently recorded in the making of a documentary about Pope Francis regarding civil recognition of 'unions' between homosexual couples appear to have led some to the erroneous conclusion that the Church's teaching on marriage has changed or is about to change."
"It is a misunderstanding of rights to suggest or infer that legal arrangements of civil societies canconfer a status equivalent to marriage to couples who do not conform to God's intention and design for marriage."
Following the release of "Francesco", some prominent Catholics highlighted their own past support for civil unions as a way of providing legal protections for couples of various kinds, without building a bridge towards civil recognition of same-sex marriage.
Ryan Anderson, senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, noted Wednesday that he and Princeton Professor Robert George had previously argued that civil unions would "neither introduce a rival 'marriage-lite' option, or treat same-sex unions as marriages."
The Church previously opposed the recognition of civil unions, even those explicitly defined as distinct from marriage, because they could lead to eventual recognition of "same-sex marriage," as they have done in countries like the U.K., and because they could have "the consequence of making it a model in present-day society," and "also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity."
Some have raised questions about the significance of the pope's comments, given that many Western countries have already brought in laws recognizing same-sex civil unions and "same-sex marriage." But Jesuit priest and LGBT campaigner Fr. James Martin said on Twitter that the pope's comments are "a big deal."
"For those who think the Pope's comments about same-sex civil unions are no big deal: Perhaps in the US or Western Europe. But in places like Poland, where some bishops are virulently anti-LGBT; or Uganda, where bishops side with laws criminalizing homosexuality, it's a big deal."
Martin's comments triggered a strong response from Eastern European and African Catholics, who suggested the Jesuit's comments were a form of cultural colonialism.
"What a shame to see an American priest passing judgement on African bishops!" responded Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier of Durban. "Why is it a shame? Because [Martin] doesn't know the context."
(Story continues below)
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
"In recent years, especially in [President] Obama's time, enormous pressure was put on African leaders to introduce all the Western 'isms' as a condition for receiving aid," the cardinal said.
"Legalizing of abortion and homosexuality were the foremost," Napier said.