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.

    , ,

5 responses to “St Strumpet?”

  1. Mary Brown Avatar
    Mary Brown

    How about the wife of Jesus, airbrushed out of the story by later misogynist Christians? See Starbird, M “The Woman with the Alabaster Jar” and other books by her. She is an ex-Catholic who set out to refute the Holy Blood, Holy Grail story and ended by being convinced that Jesus and Mary were a married pair (and an archetype of the male/female balance principle). There’s a wonderful window in Kilmore Church, Mull. Check it out – whoever created it intended it to represent J and M as husband and wife, and M is clearly pregnant. Of course, there is no unchallengeable evidence that Jesus was married, but what I would like to ask the sceptics is why, given that He was the word made flesh and dwelt among us, is it unacceptable for Him to have been a sexual being? Why have later Christians considered sexuality, even in a loving relationship, to be something disgusting? Because they have, we are now stuck with the nasty views of the NotW brigade that sex is either an acceptable leisure activity or something gross. As Margaret Starbird points out, if we restored Mary as Jesus’ beloved consort we would be creating a much more wholesome myth!

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      It is a little like the arguments that might be made of the relationship between Jesus and the beloved disciple though, isn’t it? All very attractive and neat if you come from a particular point of view but not really backed up with enough evidence apart from modern presumption, presupposition and desire.

      Reply
  2. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    I think the arguments on Jesus being married are very far from being liberationary. Rather, they’re the natural end-point of the Evangelical mindset that homophobically (and unbiblically) divides the world into Normal Heterosexual Married types and the demonised Other. “It is better to marry than burn” might have some mysognistic readings conducive to the fundamentalist world-view, but it hardly most naturally supports the idolatarisation of particular heterosexual relationships.

    If I had a pound for every time a nominal Sola Scriptura type had told me that St.Paul had to have been married (presumably because Our Lord’s asceticism and disinterest in heterosexual marriage is bad enough) then I would be a very rich man indeed 😉

    Interesting post Kelvin! Had no idea that St.Mary M even had red hair Perhaps she could be reclaimed as the Patron Saint of Gingers and Other Persecuted Minorities? 🙂

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      Oh, her hair was red, Ryan. Flaming Red I believe.

      Reply
  3. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    How reginal! 😉

    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.