What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • 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.

    , ,

4 responses to “+Katharine Jefferts Schori – interview”

  1. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Hurrah! Evidence, like the interview with +Gene a few years back, that you’d make a great ecclesiastical chat show host Kelvin 😉 I’d watch it!

    Reply
  2. Martin Ritchie Avatar
    Martin Ritchie

    Loved her vision of the church as holding different perspectives in tension. Hard work, but much better than settling for a monochrome church!

    Reply
  3. Revd Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Revd Ross Kennedy

    Yes – a well produced and conducted interview. But why no quesions asked that might challenge +Katharine. E. g. why does she seem so determined to turn the TEC into a monochrome (i.e. liberal) church by driving out those who hold conservative theological views? Why is she so intent ( using the full weight of secular law) to grab the church properties from those Episcopal parishes which have decided to realign with another Province? Of course, legally in the USA the church buildings do belong to the denomination. But morally? After all most of those churches have been built and maintained by the local people with not a penny being contributed by TEC. Bishop Katharine impresses me in many ways although she is at the opposite end of the theological spectrum. I just find it so sad that since she became PB the TEC has become increasingly fragmented. And just in case I am asked – I do not support the action of parishes that have decided to defect. I believe they should stay and continue to witness to their understanding of the Faith.

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      Well, I guess its a matter of perspective. I did kind of think that the oil spill affecting the US coast and the most devastating earthquake in recent history were kind of big stories. They also both related to the Synod that +Katharine was at. We were discussing ecological stuff quite a lot and we gave money directly to Episcopal Sisters in Haiti.

      It seems to me that the US church ownership thing is a bit of a non-story in the long run, however emotive it might be today. The SEC here and the Church of England down south would surely behave in exactly the same way to any vicar and congregation claiming they own the buildings and church fabric. Indeed, I think that in Scotland at least, it might well be the case that the charity regulations would make the Diocesan Trustees liable if they were not to press such a case.

      I’m no lawyer, I’m a priest. And I’m not as brave as you are, Ross, if you really think that the law of the land in the US (or in the UK) and moral values are not more closely linked than you seem to suggest.

      In Scotland we have no choice. Our canons acknowledge that our church will be governed in accordance with Scots Law.

      Reply

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.