UK Catholic bigot/bishop uses Christmas sermon to bash gay marriage

Merry Christmas to you too, Catholic Archbigot of England and Wales, Vincent Nichols.  You’d think a Catholic, let alone a Catholic leader, might find something better to do with his time on Christmas day, than bash gays and gay marriage.  Say, I don’t know, maybe talk about love, and joy, and hope.

But you’d be asking for too much.  The Pope did the same thing – he used Christmas to bash the gays too. (Because we care what a former Nazi, running an enterprise that serially aids and abets the rape of children, has to say about morality.)

From the Guardian:

The head of the Roman Catholic church in England and Wales issued his strongest attack yet on the government’s plans to introduce same-sex marriage, lambasting them as “shambolic” and accusing the prime minister of “shallow thinking”.

In the most divisive of a host of Christmas Day comments from religious leaders, the archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, questioned the democratic credentials of the plans, which could see the first gay weddings take place in 2014.

Gay Parents

Gay Parents via Shutterstock

How about the Democratic credentials of the Catholic church? How many Catholics, outside of Nigeria, agree with the church’s out of date mandates on sexuality?  Not 50%, that’s for sure, and certainly not in America.  Yet for some reason, the Catholic leadership still keeps trying to enforce its will on not just Catholics who don’t agree with it, but, like the Mormons so often do in the US, on the rest of us who aren’t even Catholic.  Forcing non-Catholics to live by Catholic religious edicts: How democratic is that?

Of course, let’s play the archbishop’s game for a moment, shall we?  He wants to pretend that he’s all Mr. Democracy, even though he comes from a church that is anything but democratic, but let’s look at public opinion in the UK on the issue of gay marriage.  Three-fifths of the population is in favor of it.

From a separate Guardian article:

More than three in five voters support David Cameron’s wish to introduce gay marriage, according to a poll conducted for the Guardian.


And of course, the larger issue here is why we should listen at all, on moral issues, to a church that has yet to come clean on the serial rape of children – committed, aided, and abetted by its own leadership, worldwide, for decades?

The Catholic leadership is free to shove a sliver in our eyes when it pulls the very bloody plank out of its own.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

  • Jim Olson

    Well, that’s part of the problem. Rome believes itself to be the one true church. There is no salvation apart from the Roman Catholic Church, according to them. The rest of us are just ecclesiastical communities. A bunch of us told Rome to go pound sand in the 16th c., and have been working towards different goals since then. We are imperfect; all human institutions are, but I can honestly say we punish ministers who violate their vows or abuse children, and we do honestly try to live the gospel message of loving God, and loving our neighbor as ourselves. We occasionally get lost in the brambles, but most of the time, we find our way back on our journeys of faith.

  • Ninong

    Apparently “shambolic” was the “secret word” and like the Groucho Marx duck you have descended from the ceiling onto this thread. Did you bring a $100 bill with you?

  • Shanbolic sounds like an Enya song.

  • Ratzo, not surprisingly, has yet to deliver a homely on how Nazism threatened the very fabric of human civilization, resulted in nearly 60-80 million deaths and how the Vatican collaborated in protecting SS guilty of crimes against humanity . But then again Mr. Pope was a Nazi.

  • Yet, 1500 years or so is a might wide base for insults.

  • UncleBucky

    The current Pope is beyond his sell-by date. ;o)

    I don’t have any hope for a reversal in any successor soon, but I do think that there will be many ReMaxx signs in front of RCC churches, soon, in particular, the Vatican.

  • The Catholic Vatican is probably the world’s oldest and most successful corporation, certainly its most aggressively ruinous, greedy and unswervingly evil agendas have brought more suffering and death to the world than works of the Gospels. The Vatican is anathema to the very name Jesus, who they turned into a masochistic King and who constitutes a cannibal fetish at every Mass.

  • UncleBucky

    A majority of Catholics, when the priest is not peering over their shoulders, say they don’t care about civil equal marriage. And if a couple wish to have a priest marry them, they can easily get that done in an Episcopalian or similar church (just check to make sure that the laying of the hands is checked out, and you know THEY ARE). The Roman Catholic Church is just a particular church, not THE ONLY Church. Thus, we have nothing against “Catholics”, but rather tons against the idiot men in dresses. Go take your strawman elsewhere.

  • The sooner the better. Also noting that the Vatican is not the Church.

  • No. Just the Catholic leadership, which deserves the insults. I’ve got no problems with Catholics, having been raised as one myself, but I do have a problem with hypocrisy, like when people say they don’t hate gay people, they just don’t want us to have the right to marry, to have or adopt kids, and not to be fired from our jobs or denied housing.

    The current Pope has said repeatedly that gays getting married by civil governments threatens the very fabric of human civilization. That kind of hateful remark deserves rebuttal.

  • So, three words from the Archbishop: very informative. Obviously that’s enough for baseless insults towards Catholics.

  • It’s the standard tactic among the regressives: If it’s decided in court, insist it must be done in the legislature. If it’s passed in the legislature, insist it must be put to a popular vote. If the issue is at risk of becoming established law, whether by legislation or plebiscite, take it to the courts and demand a permanent injunction. Lose at any of these stages and simply take it around the circle. No matter what though, they draw the line at people being granted a newly protected civil right, seeking to delay implementation as long as possible, years or decades if it can be managed.

    Our problem is they’ll never accept the idea that gays and lesbians deserve civil rights and legal protections until they give up believing that being gay or lesbian is an inherently sinful state, above and beyond merely venal sins.

    There was a time, not that many centuries ago, when it was the height of heresy to believe that the Earth orbited the Sun, and that it was not the center of the universe. It was a religious crime punishable by Excommunication to assert this publicly. Even after the reality of modern astronomy had come to be accepted, it still took centuries more before the Church would admit that its conviction and punishment of Galileo was wrong, although this too was conditional and tainted with self-justifications.

    The way we win is the same way the Church has been forced either to accept reality (i.e., modern science, astronomy, chemistry, geology) or become increasingly marginalized and irrelevant. I mean, they’ve said for centuries now that faithful Catholics shouldn’t use any birth control other than the rhythm method — but contraceptives are used anyway at some point in their lives by the overwhelming majority of Catholic women in the developed world. The Church says it’s a sin — yet I seriously doubt there are many Catholic women going to Confession to say, “Bless me Father, for I have sinned. It’s been two weeks since my last Confession. My sin is that I’ve been taking doctor-prescribed contraceptive medication.”

    This is why my key question will always be, “Do they accept that being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered is simply how some humans are, that being LGBT does not represent a moral defect or a defiance of God’s will?” Until that answer is “yes” — they remain the enemy of equality, anti-discrimination, and fundamental human rights.

  • jomicur

    “love, and joy, and hope”? When has the Catholic church ever been about any of those? Well…love for underage children, I guess, and joy at the orgasms that result. And I suppose they hope the whole scandal will go away. But other than that…?

  • seamus

    SHAMBOLIC: such a lovely British term, meaning, of course, “chaotic,” or, “in shambles.” Examples would be the state of the church’s canon law, or the current moral authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

  • Butch1

    This is another so-called “man of god” that should be leading his flock with words of peace on earth and celebrating the birth of the Christ child but, what does he choose instead to do but preach hateful messages about us gay brothers and sisters and how to hate them even more. This man is no holy man by any sense of the word and the people in the congregation should have gotten up in the middle of his homily and walked out. That would have spoken volumes about his hateful message and perhaps said something to him and the church that Enough is Enough with the hate against us and that they should get on with doing the work that they should be doing especially during one of the most holy times of the year. This was outrageous of him to pull a stunt like this.

  • monroecolby

    Thank you for rising up against Catholic Inc. These industrial Christianists are repulsive zealots, and directly responsible for snatching our marriage rights from us in California. If the law won’t reflect equality, they will need to be held accountable for their actions. In this instance, an eye for two eyes is apt. I hate The Pope and his perverted fools for their deliberate exploitation of sexism and homophobia.

  • ronbo

    Let’s hope the Catholic Church continues its slow-motion death. May a change of consciousness cause their hate to reflect back upon the Catholic leadership.

  • MyrddinWilt

    He clearly does not understand how the UK government works.

    The Archbishop’s complaint was that there had not been enough time, that the correct procedures had not been observed. Classic agenda denial tactics: when the argument is lost argue that we should not discuss the matter or that we should discuss it in a different way.

    The history here is that the UK started talking about civil same sex mariages over a decade ago and passed a civil unions bill in 2005. So the issue has certainly been on the political agenda. Anyone involved in that move knew that Blair had agreed to the civil unions proposal because the Conservative party told him that they could deliver enough votes for that to pass and demonstrate a bipartisan approach. But that was always understood as a downpayment, not the final installment. The issue would be revisited in ten years time and a full mariage bill voted on.

    Last thing anyone in the UK wanted to do was to turn same sex mariage into a partisan political controversy like it has become in the US. Blair could probably have got a full mariage bill through without Tory support. But that would have risked making it a party issue.

    So this is hardly being rushed. There was ten years notice. The only change is that the second vote is following the first rather sooner than expected. But that is hardly a surprise when the issue polls with 2/3rds in favor.

    None of the UK parties wants to risk losing an MP by forcing them to vote against their conscience on an issue like this. So there is a long history of such votes being taken without a party whip

    I can’t recall a case where a national party manifesto took a position on a conscience issue except to state that the government would give time for a bill. A green paper is a preliminary discussion document that would lead to a white paper. That would only be appropriate if the government was considering whipping the bill

  • nicho

    The reason is that religion is all about control. Religious leaders want to tell people what to wear, what to eat — and when — when to work and not work, who to have sex with and when, etc. For Catholics, marriage is just about the last area where they have any say. People have told them to fuck off in just about every other area. This is why they’re desperate on the issue of same-sex marriage. It’s a crumbling empire and this assault is just part of its death throes.

  • Steve_in_CNJ

    pampered RC geezers in a race to the bottom — competition is fierce.

© 2017 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS