What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • From Criminality to Equality

    I think this is one of the moments in the debates on marriage where there’s more wisdom to be heard in one speech made well than in acres of newsprint trying to analyse the vote in the House of Commons last night.

    Here’s David Lammy giving it his all.

    Let me speak frankly.

    “Separate but equal” is a fraud.

    “Separate but equal” is the language that tried to push Rosa Parks to the back of the bus.

    “Separate but equal” is the motif that determined that black and white could not possibly drink from the same water fountain, eat at the same table or use the same toilets.

    “Separate but equal” are the words that justified sending black children to different schools from their white peers – schools that would fail them and condemn them to a life of poverty.

    It is an excerpt from the phrasebook of the segregationists and the racists.

    It is the same statement, the same ideas and the same delusion that we borrowed in this country to say that women could vote – but not until they were 30.

    It is the same naivety that gave made my dad a citizen in 1956 but refused to condemn the landlords that proclaimed “no blacks, no Irish, no dogs”.

    It entrenched who we were, who our friends could be and what our lives could become.

    This was not “Separate but equal” but “Separate AND discriminated”,

    “Separate AND oppressed”.

    “Separate AND browbeaten”.

    “Separate AND subjugated”.

    Separate is NOT equal, so let us be rid of it.

    Because as long as there is one rule for us and another for them, we allow the barriers to acceptance to stand unchallenged.

    As long as our statute books suggest that the love between two men or two women is unworthy of being recognised through marriage, we allow the rot of homophobia to fester.

    And then again at the end:

    The Jesus I know was born a refugee, illegitimate, with a death warrant on his name in a barn among animals. He would stand up for minorities. That is why it is right for people of religious convictions to stand up for this bill.

    There’s a longer version of the speech (which he would have given if he had been given more time) on his website.

    , , ,

14 responses to “Liturgical sadness”

  1. Robin Avatar
    Robin

    Has anyone else been following the series in ‘The Tablet’ taking the Latin Sunday Collects from the Roman Missal (Ordinary Form), printing alongside them the official English translations and then commenting on the Collects?

    The effect the series has on me is not what was intended. I spend much of my time being puzzled and irritated by the looseness of the translations from the Latin – words and phrases left out, new ideas included, and sometimes translations which are at best a paraphrase.

    The point of mentioning this is that what I’ve seen of the new English translation of the Roman Mass is undoubtedly more faithful to the Latin, which is, after all, the definitive form.

    This will be important to some and, I expect, an irrelevance to others. However, an ecumenical gesture we could make (pause for breathtakingly unpopular suggestion!) would be to incorporate the new relevant parts of the new translation in our own Liturgy. That really *would* show ecumenical goodwill.

    Reply
  2. David |Dah • veed| Avatar
    David |Dah • veed|

    “…the Latin, which is, after all, the definitive form.”

    That is certainly debatable. I fail to see that the purpose of the liturgical reforms of the 70s and 80s which resulted in many new liturgical books for most major denominations and prayer books for Anglicans, was to get us all back to the Latin Mass.

    Rome has pretty much cut the rest of us “free” so to speak, as irredeemable for all the heresies of women’s ordination and now GLBT ordinations and same sex blessings, and I am fine with that. I would not go anywhere near the Tiber, but I share Kelvin’s sense of loss of something we pew sitters shared around the world.

    Reply
  3. Robin Avatar
    Robin

    Just to clarify, when I wrote “…the Latin, which is, after all, the definitive form” I meant that it was the definitive form for Roman Catholics.

    Reply
  4. Ritualist Robert Avatar
    Ritualist Robert

    Vicky wrote: “… it is unlikely new conversion areas such as China would find Latin accessible.”

    A Roman friend of mine who probably would know said to me the other day that the Catholics in China use the Latin mass because they missed out on the reforms of Vatican II. Does anybody know if this is true?

    I went recently to a Latin mass here in Sydney with the same friend and most of the servers and the priest were from Vietnam … and a good deal of the back-to-the-future seminarians one sees at the papist cathedral seem to be Korean … so I am not sure that the formality of the Latin mass, or a more formal English one will put off Asian converts.

    It’s a pity that the ecumenical implications of this translation exercise haven’t been pondered a bit more.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • What I've been reading

    Just finished The Line of Beauty, Alan Hollinghurst's Booker winner. He does have a capacity to capture with such wistful longing, situations which seem so unattractive in the cold light of day. The mark of a true stylist, I suppose.Well, that having been completed over the last couple of days, I guess that I had better turn…

  • Singing Detective

    I’ve been thoroughly enjoying the rerun of the Singing Detective on BBC4 this week. I’ve never seen it before – either I didn’t have a television when it was first on or I was not interested then. Last 2 episodes tonight.

  • E-mail outage

    If I don’t seem to be responding to e-mail stimulus, it is because my ISP is having trouble delivering them to me.

  • Midnight Mass

    Midnight Mass tonight at 2315. Mulled wine. Carols. Choir. Candlelight. Communion at midnight. All the works. All welcome.