Khalwale 'mocks' Pope Francis for allowing blessing of same sex-couples

By Peter Ochieng

Kakamega Senator Bonny Khalwale has criticised Pope Francis's move to allow of blessing of same sex-couples.

While mocking decision, the vocal Senator said it is akin to celebrating homosexuality.

He said the decision will be difficult for people, especially from his luhya backyard to buy into it due to strong cultural and family issues.

"The Catholic Church was established in Luhyialand first at Mumias in 1904 and shortly after at Mukumu in 1906. Its evangelism was not only a success but also a hit majorly because of its respect for our values," the Senator said in a post on X, formerly Twitter.

"Now, the Pope wants us to celebrate homosexuality, completely contrary to our culture and strong family values! A toll order!" he added.

On Monday, news filtered through that the Vatican had approved a landmark ruling to allow Roman Catholic priests, to administer blessings to same-sex couples as long as they are not part of regular Church rituals or liturgies, nor given in contexts related to civil unions or weddings.

A document from the Vatican’s doctrinal office approved by Pope Francis, said that such blessings would not legitimise irregular situations but be a sign that 'God welcomes all.'

The document backed "the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex, but this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them."

According to the document, priests should decide on a case-by-case basis and “should not prevent or prohibit the Church’s closeness to people in every situation in which they might seek God’s help through a simple blessing."

The Vatican has for long insisted that marriage is an indissoluble union between man and woman.

As a result, it has long opposed same-sex marriage.

In 2008, the Vatican declined to sign onto a United Nations (UN) declaration that called for the decriminalisation of homosexuality, complaining the text went beyond the original scope and also included language about “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” it found problematic.