Since its release yesterday, I have read the full letter, as well as assorted summaries and commentaries, by churchmen, journalists and victims' groups. Reflecting on it, I simply come up with more questions than answers - so many, in fact, that I propose to respond not in a single post, but in a series. Yes, there are other useful things I could be writing about, would prefer to be writing about: I am bursting to get down some posts which elaborate on James L'Empereur's ideas of the charism and spiritual gifts of gay spirituality, and on what (global) history has to say about the family, sex and natural law, for instance. but this response to the greatest crisis facing the church in recent history is so important, that other issues will have to wait. I ask for the patience and indulgence of my non-Catholic readers, who may find the whole sordid saga too much to pay attention.
The first and most important question, which I have not seen raised anywhere else, is why on earth should the idea of a pastoral letter even be considered appropriate in the first place? as I look at it, there is a sense in which, unless it contains extraordinary wisdom (and this one patently does not), the very idea simply perpetuates part of the problem. This point was driven home to me as I read the responses of too many bishops and Vatican spokesmen, which one phrase constantly recurs: the "Holy Father". Like "pastoral" itself, these words in this context, are misleading and harmful.
The "Good Shepherd: Jesus Christ, or Benedict XVI?
"Pastoral" of course, is a word widely used in the Church to describe the nature of the relationship between church and people, and is also widely used elsewhere, as in schools. The problem lies in its hidden connotations.
