Irish Examiner view: Conservative voices prevail in Catholic Church
Pope Francis at the Vatican last Friday. Despite urgings from the Pope the report from the synod fell far short of the inclusivity towards the LGBT+ community than was expected. Picture: Andrew Medichini/AP
Despite urgings from Pope Francis, the report from the 2023 Synod on Synodality which concluded in Rome last weekend fell far short of the inclusivity towards the LGBT+ community than was expected. Nor did it inspire hope there would be a greater official role for women in the Catholic Church any time soon.
Prior to the opening of the synod, Pope Francis had dropped something of a theological bolt from the blue when he suggested that priests — albeit on a case-by-case basis — could bless same-sex couples if such a benediction fell short of the sacrament of marriage.
It then transpired at the month-long gathering in the Vatican that support for such inclusivity was in short supply as senior clerics from Eastern Europe and Africa in particular took a much more conservative approach than that envisaged by Pope Francis.
The concluding report from the synod, approved by a two-thirds majority of the voting members, fell far short of the inclusivity the Pope had aspired to.
This was expected to be a very different synod from previous gatherings of the churches’ highest consultative body, especially as it included lay people and women voting members for the first time, but the concluding report failed even to mention “LGBT+”.
It ventured only that “people who feel marginalised or excluded from the Church, due to their marital situation, also ask to be listened to and accompanied and that their dignity is defended”.
Furthermore, the report contained no mention of women in the priesthood and contained little enthusiasm for the idea.
Conservatism, it appears, still stalks the Vatican’s hallowed halls.
Another legal front opens
Aside altogether from his leading role in the New York civil trial in which he and three of his adult children will be the star witnesses this week, two other legal actions in courtrooms in Colorado and Minnesota this week will judge former US president, Donald Trump.
Starting yesterday in Colorado, before Sarah B Wallace, a district court judge in Denver, a week-long hearing is exploring whether or not the events that occurred in Washington DC on January 6, 2020, qualified as an insurrection and, if the court finds that was the case, then Trump could be barred from the ballot paper in the state for the 2024 presidential election.
Some 1500km northeast of Colorado, the Minnesota Supreme Court will, on Thursday, also hear arguments about whether an obscure part of the US constitution will keep Trump off the ballot paper there. And, in the coming weeks, other courts around the country may hear similar proceedings.
Even though Trump is facing four separate criminal indictments, he is still steaming ahead with his bid to regain the White House and leading in most polls. But the two cases this week — and whatever other, similar court actions might be taken in states such as Michigan — present him with an altogether different legal headache.
This latest legal strategy against Trump, which is being taken by an unusual mix of liberals and conservatives, is quite unlike any used against a presidential candidate. The efforts hinge on a provision of the 14th Amendment of the US constitution — enacted after the American Civil War — which says people cannot hold office if they have previously taken an oath to support the constitution and then they engage in insurrection.
Typically, Trump has cast these lawsuits as “nonsense” and labelled them “election interference”, while his legal advisors have argued that the relevant section of the 14th Amendment does not apply to the presidency and courts do not have the ability to keep him off the ballot.
Legal scholars across the country are divided on the issue, but it is expected that whichever side loses the case will ultimately take it all the way to the US Supreme Court, as its decision would settle the matter nationwide.
It has long been expected that Trump would be seeing the inside of a courtroom more than he would his supporters on the campaign trail, but if these latest legal moves ultimately go against him, then there may well be no more Trump at the stump if his name is not allowed on the ballot sheet.
Worrying trend of pedestrian road deaths
While the number of deaths on our roads this year is already spiralling towards a record high, the number of pedestrians being killed here is likely to be the highest in 15 years.
Prior to the weekend, when there were two fatalities, 155 people died as a result of 145 road traffic collisions. That is 36 more than was the case last year and 43 more than was recorded in 2019.
What is notable is that of the total road deaths, one in four — 38 — have been pedestrians. That compares with 43 pedestrians killed on our roads in 2022. And with two of the most dangerous months on our roads ahead, that figure looks perilously like it could be exceeded.
The trend indicates that pedestrian fatality figures for 2023 could be at their highest since 2008 and while it is bad enough that the number of motorists being killed is on the rise, it is concerning that pedestrian death are increasing as well.
Exact causes for these fatalities might take some time to emerge. Factors may include the likes of poor urban lighting or a lack of high-visibility clothing while on rural roads, as well as driver behaviour.
One way or another, this is an indication that aspects of road safety remain unaddressed.
