1. The interview from which the film clips of Pope Francis are in the news today is actually from Late May/June 2019. (youtube link)
2. The first clip, when speaking of a "right to a family," very clearly means that parents shouldn't disown their gay children.
3. The 2nd clip, which was spliced into the (apparent) documentary clip, does NOT appear anywhere in the aired interview/transcript. But the film places the two clips together to create the appearance that PF was endorsing same sex "convivencia civil" in a very broad sense
.Either way, we have no context whatsoever for that clip – it could very well be about Amoris Laetia for all we know! 4. At 1:00:06 there is a jump in the clip in a context that makes the comment even remotely probable. The clip wasn't aired, I venture to guess, because it was liable to be taken out of context or very easily misunderstood – likely at the request of PF or the Vatican. But that's also general speculation on my part. (Moreover, PF also spoke against the "incongruity" of same sex marriage right around the cut.)
5. So where did that clip on civil unions appear from? Seems unlikely that the Televisa station would secretly hold that clip from a long interview to spring up now. So how did the documentarian get it? Clearly he's also using it in widely deceptive framing
----------
he interview lack a reference to civil unions for homosexuals. It seems most likely it was cut after about 1:00:08. At this point he is critiquing the problems with “gay marriage,” then there is a cut almost mid-sentence to another topic. I suspect someone asked then that this clip be removed to avoid being taking out of context, but the documentary filmmakers found the unedited video and then took this line out of context. The exact words before the cut are: “I always defended the doctrine, right? Curiously, in the ‘gay marriage’ law, I always defended [doctrine]: ‘gay marriage’ is incongruous.” If the quote above (“What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered.”) came right after or soon after that – especially if proceeded by a phrase like “instead” – it is clear the goal is civil unions instead of “gay marriage.”
p>Gerard O’Connell got the precise transcript for America. (Red is the original 2019 interview and green is the documentary released this week.)
I have always defended the doctrine. And it is curious that in the law on homosexual marriage…. It is an incongruity to speak of homosexual marriage. But what we have to have is a law of civil union (ley de convivencia civil), so they have the right to be legally covered.
You will notice only “but” is not in either. I had guess “instead” which in this context means almost the same thing. We can clearly see Pope Francis is putting these two in opposition. (Side note: Gerald and I translate slightly differently, but this is clearly the same text and I think Gerald’s translation is fine.)
You will notice only “but” is not in either. I had guess “instead” which in this context means almost the same thing. We can clearly see Pope Francis is putting these two in opposition. (Side note: Gerald and I translate slightly differently, but this is clearly the same text and I think Gerald’s translation is fine.)
Gerald’s story indicates that cutting out the black and green above would have been with Francis’s permission as “as a matter of general principle, the Vatican did not edit or remove any part of what Francis said in the interview without his prior agreement.”
Also, the same story indicates the documentary filmmaker lied about the context. He claimed it was an interview he conducted when it has been shown to be this 2019 interview for Mexican television.
Your first link is not in English and you’re second link is broken.
So every prelate that has called him out on this was.....wrong. Mmmmmkay.