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 “Synod – membership”

Stewart

13/06/2008

Kelvin – you are very modest in not describing your contribution to this debate – I guess it was in your usual style.

Reply
David |dä?v?d|

13/06/2008

Kelvin, I have lurked and read here for some time. I am curious about happenings in sister Anglican churches. I live in the Diocese of Northern Mexico of the Anglican Church of Mexico. American English is a second language for me.

It is difficult for me to follow much of what is written here for two reasons. You all speak a cryptic or clipped form of English at times, even different from what I encounter from the Mad One. You also use a lot of jargon and acronyms associated with the Scottish Church.

This is all OK if you intend your blog to be mostly catering to fellow Scots. However, if you are open to a blog with more international following you all might keep my points in mind when writing.

Reply
David |daveed|

13/06/2008

I usually try to give the Spanish pronunciation of my name, as opposed to the English, but you blog does not like the augmented letters!

Perdoname.

Reply
chris

13/06/2008

Glad to see you got your connection going again – I’m impressed with your speedy blogging!

Reply
agatha

14/06/2008

But what was the motion though? You can’t say it failed without telling us what it was.

Reply
Kelvin

14/06/2008

The agenda and papers are available here:
http://www.scotland.anglican.org/index.php/news/entry/general_synod_2008_agenda_and_papers/

These have all the motions and the preparatory materials.

Thanks for your comment, David – I’d be happy to try to explain any technical terms. Synod is quite confusing enough when English is your first language.

If you take a look at the papers that I pointed to above, you will see that the synod members all have a large book in front of them.

The motion which failed would have updated the way in which membership rolls are compiled to allow people to know whether or not they are on them. At the moment, membership rolls are compiled by rectors who do not need to tell people that they are included on the roll even though they may have liabilities thereby.

Reply
agatha

14/06/2008

As one of my bosses used to say “all aid short of actual help”.
If you can be bothered summarising what all the speakers say why couldn’t you take another couple of minutes and summarise the motion?

Reply
Kimberly

15/06/2008

Perhaps what hasn’t been clear to readers who have come upon this post from further afield is that Kelvin was blogging the buisiness of synod in real time. That is only possible in short hand — and therefore probably of most use to those who are unable to be at synod, but broadly aware of the debates going on in the church.

So, perhaps we can let him off the hook for not being all things for all people while blogging from Synod, and be thankful for the wider pattern of good communication that we usually see here.

Reply