• What the Pope said was depressing not liberating

    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.

7 responses to “C of E Border Crossing”

  1. Eamonn Avatar

    I’m fizzing too! It’s not helped, either, by those of our own members who refer to us as ‘the English Church’.

  2. agatha Avatar
    agatha

    That is completely outrageous! Maybe the SEC should have talks with the Muslims and then we could declare Fatwas.

    Or is this the CoE’s off the wall attempt to solve the women bishops/gay bishops question by moving to nae bishops?

  3. FrPaulB Avatar
    FrPaulB

    As an English Anglican I’m pretty embarrassed. So much for the “Anglican Communion” we’re supposed to be busy preserving by setting up covenants and writing letters.

  4. Martin Ritchie Avatar
    Martin Ritchie

    Well, maybe this is a good thing for the SEC? At least we are not being lumped in as “Church of England” which is perhaps a step forward. The future for “state” churches in the UK seems to me to be shaky to say the least, so perhaps it’s to the benefit of the SEC to not be part of that! It is rather surprising that there is no mention of the SEC in the “history” part of the paper, other than a cursory reference to the continuing episcopalian element after 1690. Maybe all this means that we should feel completely free to reject the Anglican covenant as totally irrelevant and a hindrance to the mission of the SEC?

  5. fr dougal Avatar
    fr dougal

    I’m heading for the West Port to saddle up! Bring back Clavers and the dragoons!

  6. John Lindsay Avatar
    John Lindsay

    The CofE CofS meetings have been going on for a very long time as two national churches. The recent report is actually designed to include the SEC – check facts with ICRC or read the report itself!

  7. kelvin Avatar

    Hi John, nice to hear from you.

    I’ve read the report and was not impressed by it. I suppose I am glad that the SEC is to be included next time, something that I acknowledged above that was to happen.

    I’m entirely unimpressed with the C of E appointing one of their bishops as an emissary to the C of S though. Very much border crossing. Very inappropriate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Da Vinci

    I may be getting weary of all this da Vinci code nonsense.There was a story a while ago that a prominent Episcopalian was writing a novel. I’ve started to hope that it is a thriller based on a tussle over the true meaning of the oratory chapel in Kinnoull Monastery fought out between the mighty…

  • Rough Guide

    According to a story on the BBC website, Dundee is a less snootier place than Aberdeen.At the risk of being snootier than thou, what has either dear place got to be snooty about? 

  • Choosing a leader

    I note with interest that the Church of Ireland will have to have a new leader soon. Archbishop Robin Eames will be stepping down and making way for a successor.I do hope that the Church of Ireland manages to find someone to fulfil that post who has a long experience of the Irish Church. Someone…

  • Comments on

    I’ve turned comments back on, by the way.Opine away.