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 “Book Review”

  1. Peter O Avatar
    Peter O

    I think you miss the point of the book Kelvin. It’s meant to be a guide to listening to *all* sides of the debate, not just those you agree with. That’s what makes the last section so good, because it forces us to deal realistically not just with the genuine evidence on the causality of homosexuality, but also the fact that some people *do* see remarkable change in their sexual orientation (and that others don’t).

    I wrote my own review here.

    Reply
  2. Avatar
    Anonymous

    We were not called by the last Lambeth Conference to listen to all sides in the debate.

    Reply
  3. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Ruth Gledhill has posted a PDF of the whole thing, for those interested:
    http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/files/Final.pdf

    Reply
  4. Rosemary Avatar
    Rosemary

    I’ve now read the ‘scientific’ section – thanks for the link ryan – and I thought it was mixed. I thought Glynn Harrison made a serious attempt at dispassion. I think it is a fair point that any person must decide their own priorities, and the final argument must be between theologies, not sciences. I was not so impressed by David de Pomerai – though one could hardly quarrel with his conclusion that we simply do not know exactly what makes one person homosexual and the next heterosexual. However his whole argument was bedevilled by assumptions that, e.g. homosexual men will be more effeminate than straight ones. Anecdotal evidence instantly produces examples where it is the straight male siblings who are drama queens and run from spiders, while gay ones take it all in their stride.

    It must be accepted that both gay and straight people live with voluntary or enforced celibacy with no ill effects – and that some people can change their sexual orientation and live happily with the change. What I found truly heart rending were the desperate attempts and the high cost to those who actually did succeed in changing orientation – however much Harrison denies the skin colour analogy, it reminded me painfully of those endless jars of skin lightener which encrust Sri Lankan chemists, where beauty is measured in skin tone. Because whether or not genetic, orientation is not a simple free choice. But I suppose the answer would be: ‘And what is?’

    The final point, though, is always the same. Is Christianity a religion of an authoritative book, or an authoritative Person?

    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.