What is in Kelvin's Head?

Fake Pope Quote Posts

13/05/2025

One of the more bizarre developments in social media has been the rise in fake quotes from popes appearing online.

One might think that Roman Catholics would be particularly at the forefront of this kind of activity, but that’s not necessarily the case. Anglicans seem to love a good fake pope quote. I’ve seen them posted by an incredible number of people including several senior clerics.

I am bewildered as to why people post things and in doing so say something like “Isn’t it amazing that we’ve got a pope who said…?” and don’t pause for a moment to ask whether it might be the case that someone has just made it up. Incredulity might well be a pathway to common sense.

The sad thing is that there’s plenty of profound things that popes do say that are worth repeating. It seems a terrible shame that Pope Francis might be remembered not for his genius in addressing the Climate Crisis in Laudato Si’ but for a series of invented platitudes about hospital walls.

Particularly puzzling are those, and again, I have senior clerics in my mind, who post these things and then when told that they are not by the pope in question respond by saying that they are going to leave the post up on social media because it sounds like something the pope might have said or that they agree with the sentiments anyway.

I can’t think of a clearer example of bearing false witness than leaving something published that you have claimed to be written by someone when you know that in fact it was not.

But anyway, I have a more entertaining response to this from today than just outraged spluttering on other people’s facebook posts, which is to suggest to anyone desperate for a fake pope quote to post online that they ask ChatGPT to come up with a new one rather than recycling someone else’s.

Here’s how it goes. You open up ChatGPT and you give it this kind of prompt:

write a fake quote from Pope Leo XIV that is about 450 words long. Make it sound vaguely plausible but the message is the everyone is welcome in the church, even those who think they are not. Use the kind of language of the self-help and empowerment movement to suggest that the pope wants to change the church and that he alone has a vision to do this.

And bless it, ChatGPT churns it out beautifully.

There are many who believe the Church is not for them. They whisper to themselves, ‘Surely not me—not with my past, not with my doubts, not with my wounds.’ But I say to you today: the doors of the Church are not narrow—they are wide. They are not guarded by perfection—they are held open by grace.

We must move beyond the old habit of exclusion cloaked in the language of tradition. We must stop drawing lines where Christ drew none. The Church is not a sanctuary for the flawless; it is a refuge for the broken, the confused, the seekers, the scarred. If you feel lost, unsure, uncertain of your worth—you are precisely who Christ called. You belong here.

This is not a time for silence or shadows. It is a time for awakening. Too long have we accepted a Church that feels distant, judgmental, fearful of difference. But the Gospel was never about fear. It was always about radical welcome. About the love that does not check credentials at the door.

I envision a Church reborn—not in doctrine, but in posture. A Church that speaks less about rules and more about renewal. A Church where questions are not threats but invitations. A Church where you do not have to hide who you are to be loved as you are.

This vision is not shared by all. Some will say it is too soft, too open, too modern. But I say it is simply faithful—to the Jesus who touched the unclean, who ate with sinners, who forgave before they asked, and who never once said, ‘Come to me, but only if you’ve already cleaned yourself up.’

I do not seek to dismantle the Church—I seek to return it to its heart. That heart is mercy. That heart is hospitality. That heart is Christ.

If you are gay, divorced, disillusioned, poor, angry, unsure if you even believe anymore—come. If you have been hurt by the Church, forgotten by the Church, judged by the Church—come. If you are full of joy or full of rage—come.

You will not find a perfect community. But you will find a people trying—trying to be more like Christ, one small, stumbling step at a time. That is all any of us can do.

The future of the Church is not behind us in stone and ritual. It is ahead of us—in compassion, in courage, and in the willingness to welcome those who thought there was no place left for them. I have seen this future. And I believe it begins now.”

Isn’t that genius? “Not a time for silence or shadows” – completely meaningless and yet exactly the kind of thing that people love posting. I just love “The future of the Church is not behind us in stone and ritual…”. No pope would ever say that. Priests do tend to like a bit of ritual after all and if any pope got near saying that then I’m sure that they could count on those that surround them to prevent them making a fool of themselves and alienating all their clergy.

“I envision a Church reborn—not in doctrine, but in posture.” Can you imagine anyone other than perhaps a C of E bishop commenting on the latest draft of Prayers of Love and Faith ever saying anything so absurd? Yet I’ve seen plenty of even sillier fake pope quotes purporting to be the real deal.

People do love this kind of thing. And that’s exactly the kind of post that I’ve seen posted and liked and reposted dozens of times in the last few weeks.

Might I suggest that we put a stop to it? For as the medieval pope Kelvinius the First said in 1524…

Let not thine idle hands inscribe falsehoods in the name of the Holy See, for to speak a lie in the voice of Peter is to forge chains for thine own soul. Be on guard for the truth. For the truth shall set you ChatGPTFree.

AI, ChatGPT, fake, false witness, hospital walls, Pope, popes, quote

10 responses to “The Church of England and its Bishops”

Joan H Craig

20/11/2012

You put it well, and I agree with all that you say. In one sense it is a very sad day for priests who are women. In another, parity is crucial 🙁

Reply
Patrick Smith

20/11/2012

I am not a regular C of E communicant now but have been so in my life and I unequivocally support the proper human rights entitlement of women to serve equally as Bishops.I think that the women priests appear to have been too inclined, cap in hand, to compromise that would still have deemed women bishops, as second class.This Vote, according to some of their spokespersons was as far as the talented women priests could get, amongst the conservative antis, in the C of E.

Surely,that in our enlightened world men do not hold a monopoly on either the aspiration to achieve good in their work or to eclipse human goodness in prayer,mission and faith in the ranks of the C of E? The Bishops and Clergy have seen that women are now do one third of active work in the C of E but do not have parity at the top table.

Why is it the case that women are ordained in the US and NZ and have served their communities equally, as men, over 20 years? Whereas, in the C of E at home, the vision of the Laity Synod threatens to derrogate the status of women, as if the clock had been turned back into Victorian times and before the Suffragettes had started their quest for universal suffrage and equality in work for women.

Reply
Duncan MacLaren

20/11/2012

Nigel McCulloch said in the debate, “If you wait for the perfect piece of legislation, you’ll be waiting for ever.”
I can understand the principled position that you don’t want to pass flawed and discriminatory legislation: but I can’t help thinking this would be better than acquiescing for another 5 years in an even more discriminatory status quo.
Had women bishops been voted in, they would have had five years to demonstrate practically to their opponents that they were competent, valuable, indispensable, talented and undeniably called leaders in the church. Instead, we now have the task of creating legislation the opponents will like even less (because it won’t make space for their position), and then trying to get it voted through. And five years of practical experience – perhaps the best argument – wasted.
If there were six lay liberals (the margin of votes) who voted ‘no’ on principle this evening, I wonder how long before they will rue the day? Principle is all very well, but possession is nine-tenths of the law. Had women been granted this possession, we could have spent the next five years chasing down the discriminatory clauses: as it is, we are back to square one. Barren theological argument now prevails over the witness and example of flesh and blood women.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  20/11/2012
  
  I understand that view, Duncan. I’d agree with it if there was any evidence in the last 20 years of anyone either trying or succeeding to eliminate the flying bishops that were created last time around. It is much, much easier to create good legislation than to repeal, tinker and undo bad legislation.
  
  Reply
2. Augur Pearce
  
  21/11/2012
  
  As I see it part of the problem was the large number of Synod members who wanted to see women bishops but thought that unity was more important than principle, and were therefore prepared to compromise. The ideal scenario would not have been rejection of the Measure, but an amendment to get rid of the discriminatory clauses. That wasn’t possible because the ‘unity party’ (for want of a better name) would have allied with the fundamentalists to defeat it. I hope that those who made up this ‘unity party’ will now realise the time for compromise is past and support legislation which, as you say, the opponents will like even less because it wonâ€™t make space for their position. I believe such legislation would pass, but would lead the fundamentalists to dissent from the C of E and form their own conventicles (as many have done before them, for better reasons). There would then be some hope of the General Synod addressing other equality issues, such as marriage…
  
  Reply
Tim

20/11/2012

Could it be said that it spent too long cooking?

The impression I get is that the SEC was quite decisive in dealing with the Covenant earlier.
What I’ve seen with the CoE looks like internalized via-media meeting a half-open door – and no wonder some people use the word “irrelevant”. As such, I’m wondering if it shouldn’t have simply been “women bishops, yes or no?” a while ago and then there wouldn’t have been such clumsy inaccuracy of reporting, at least…

Reply
Ritualist Robert

21/11/2012

I have to say, regretfully, that I am relieved it didn’t pass because, imho, it allowed for far too many ‘provisions’ for so-called traditionalists. Their arguments seem to be based on one of the most vile theological concepts ever invented – ‘taint’ – though, of course, nobody admits to it. I understand the Evangelicals’ objections (though I disagree with them), but I am flummoxed by things like the ‘traditionalist’ catholics’ demand for ‘flying bishops’ (a concept which fails any test for catholicity) and attacks the very basis of Anglican Church structure and order – that of a bishop acting as the Ordinary in his/her diocese. Choosing one’s bishop based on whether one likes their theological outlook is quite a novelty, but it’s one that the so-called traditionalists insist on being allowed. Moreover, to claim to be catholic surely means to support the Church. When the Church of England ordained women for the first time surely it was up to those catholics who disagreed to either (a) conform their minds to the mind of the Church – surely the duty of anyone who calls themselves catholic – or (b) to have enough integrity to part with the Church and find another spiritual home.

Instead we have so-called traditionalists promoting what are essentially congregationalist novelties whilst claiming – falsely, I believe – to be catholics, all the while arguing for a distinctly non-catholic version of the Church.

Reply
Justin Reynolds

22/11/2012

If politics is ‘the art of the possible’ then surely all liberals should have backed the measure, whatever its flaws. The notion that one day we will all be marching hand in hand towards the sunlit progressive uplands is somewhat fantastic, I think.

Everyone who joins the C of E, or indeed the SEC, knows what kind of church it is: essentially progressive (as witnessed by the Synod vote) but with significant minorities opposed to change. And it isn’t like a political party where arguments are conducted in the field of political philosophy and politics with a realistic hope that the mind of the party might change decisively over time in one direction or other. In the case of the church disputes are necessarily more intransigent, concerned with the interpretation of revelation and long standing traditions. These disagreements take decades, indeed centuries, to resolve, in so far as they can be resolved at all.

Perhaps those who can’t live with compromise, be they conservative or liberal, should consider whether they are actually in the right denomination at all, rather than hoping that one day – sooner rather than later – everyone will agree with them. It’s often noted that conservatives can go Orthodox or Roman Catholic, as indeed some have. It’s less often suggested that liberals might consider Unitarianism or Quakerism. I say that as a liberal who has at various times wavered between those two – and others – and Episcopalianism. I’ve ended up as an Episcopalian, but I did so knowing full well the intractable nature of the disagreements besetting the denomination, and that I had to live with them or simply go elsewhere. It seems to me that Christians are far too sentimental and attached to particular denominations.

Also, with respect Rowan Williams’ tenure can hardly be seen as an ‘abject failure’. Everyone knew he believed in conciliation and compromise when he was selected. His liberalism on a number of issues only formed a component of his theology. And his intellectual contribution over the past decade to British national life has been significant, particularly in regard to political and economic issues. His archepiscopate has gone some way towards restoring Anglicanism’s intellectual credibility: witness the tributes from secular as well as religious quarters on news of his retirement.

Reply
Seph

22/11/2012

Apparently Diana Johnson MP (Lab., Hull North) is planning to bring a ten-minute rule bill in the new year which will include a clause calling for women bishops. Parliament could succeed here where General Synod failed.

Reply
Rosie Bates

02/12/2012

Check out Bristol Diocese action re Vote of No Confidence in Synod! How lovely on the mountains are the feet of Him who brings Good News! Hope the rest take note and follow a fine example. Hope in this Advent message. Bishop Mike was an Area Bishop in Oxford Diocese and likely to be very clued up to certain of their Synod Reps games which cannot be stopped before July without reform or, at the very least, tough love.

Reply