What is in Kelvin's Head?

What the Pope said was depressing not liberating

29/07/2013

Here’s what the Pope said today according to the BBC:

Pope Francis said gay clergymen should be forgiven and their sins forgotten.

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well,” Pope Francis said in a wide-ranging 80-minute long interview with Vatican journalists.

“It says they should not be marginalised because of this but that they must be integrated into society.”

But he condemned what he described as lobbying by gay people.

“The problem is not having this orientation,” he said. “We must be brothers. The problem is lobbying by this orientation, or lobbies of greedy people, political lobbies, Masonic lobbies, so many lobbies. This is the worse problem.”

Well, we might have a slight change in tone from Benedict but this is a depressing statement not a liberating one.

There’s nothing new here that is helpful and something that really isn’t.

The bits that are not new simply follow the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church Sections 2357-2359

The bit that is depressing is the suggestion that gay lobbying is the real problem. In other words, gay people exist but shouldn’t do anything about their lives, should not advocate a better world for gay people, try to improve the lot of gay people nor try to save the lives of gay people in parts of the world where they are under threat.

This is nasty stuff and I’m sorry to hear it.

I’m even more sorry that the headlines that this has engendered will make people think there is hope when there isn’t really much hope to be had.

Today the pope made an oppresive statement about gay people and the world’s media is reporting it as a great step forward for gay rights.

Tell me, is saying bad things in a nice way better than saying the same old things in the same old way?

I don’t think it is.

And while we are at it, note that he condemned political lobbying. That’s chilling for different reasons.

Of course, all this was in the context of being asked about the Vatican. (The existence of a “gay lobby” in the Vatican is currently much under discussion). All the same, these words are damaging words that will be read far from their original context. They do nothing to bring in the kind of world I hope for.

LGBT, Pope, Pope Francis

8 responses to “Bin Ladin”

Hermano David | Brother Dahâ€¢veed

02/05/2011

I agree with him entirely.

Then I think my friend that you join him in a conclusion that at this moment cannot be substantiated by fact. There is no evidence that bin Laden was executed. He died in a fire fight when the team tasked with his capture tried to do so. To claim more than the facts currently state is to jump to a conclusion based in personal prejudice.

Aside from that one discrepancy, I also agree with much of what he said.

Reply
Agatha

02/05/2011

It did occur to me that the UK does public rejoicing (see Friday) better than the US (see this morning).

Reply
Rosemary Hannah

03/05/2011

We have no room for complacency – remember ‘Gotcha’ in the Falklands war???

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  04/05/2011
  
  Yes, that was vulgar too.
  
  Reply
David

04/05/2011

Irrespective of the terrible atrocities masterminded by individuals such as Osama Bin-Laden…and…regardless of the improbable scenario of his being captured alive and put on trial, the rejoicing that followed his death was both tacky and tactless. Comments (albeit by family members of 9/11 victims) alluding to …”God placing him in Hell to rot for eternity…” similarly did nobody any favours. If anything, the backlash from extremists eager to avenge his death (martyrdom?) will now cost further innocent lives. The phrase that jumps to mind is: ‘least said soonest mended…’

Reply
ryan

04/05/2011

I’m not sure that pacifist prooftexting is any lbetter than the other kinds. It’s surely morally permissable to celebrate the death of a legitimate, significant military target. And much of the “fanning the flames” rhetoric is inane – people can argue over whether nominally Islamic terrorism can be appeased , but the idea of Al-Queda dialing back their actions or reforming their ethos because (say) the world didn’t overly celebrate killing Bin Laden is ridiculous. Wouldn’t capturing him alive and forcing him to endure infidel courts be even more provocative than a martyr’s bullet and burial at sea?

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  04/05/2011
  
  I don’t think I like the idea of celebrating the death of anyone, Ryan.
  
  That’s the kind of thing we find too often in the Bible, isn’t it? And it is vulgar there too.
  
  I don’t like lynch mob mentality no matter who is on the receiving end.
  
  Reply
ryan

04/05/2011

Indeed – I agree that the “get it up ye!” response very much does not represent humankind at its best. But not celebrating *anyone’s* death is quite different, to me, to the most popular current arguments that largely emphasise that Bin Ladin personally is an inappropriate figure for Sic Semper Tyrannis triumphalism.

I found the Vatican’s reaction interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Europe

Reply