Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Catholic Church tells worshippers to bombard MPs with letters telling them to vote against gay equality

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. “I urge everyone who cares about upholding the meaning of marriage in civil law to make their views known to their Members of Parliament”

    Civil law. Get that? Civil. As in nothing to do with the church. Mind your own business you idiot.

    1. Catholic bishops, Catholic priests and Catholic laity – all of whome make up the Catholic Church – have votes which weigh just as much as yours in the ballot box. They have a right to make their views known to their elected representatives.

      1. And just as importantly, marriage is a civil institution, which the church is permitted to participate under the direction and supervision of the state.

        1. ozpsych

          That’s not strictly true in the UK with regard to same-sex marriage. The Church of England is being forbidden by equal marriage legislation from participating. Other churches may opt in if they wish.

          As to your point, the Catholic Church is perfectly entitled to say it doesn’t want to conduct same-sex weddings. But what it is doing is going beyond this, and encouraging Catholics to campaign against equal civil marriage, in which it will would not be participating.

          In a democracy, institutions have the legal right to campaign to withhold civil equality from minorities they do not approve of, up to a point. Whether they have a moral right to do so is a moot point.

          1. No, they do not. Read the provisions of the Equality Act 2010. Marriage is specifically excluded, but the reverse of what you state is true, institutions MUST NOT exclude, marginalise or show bigotry or prejudice towards any minority as defined within the 9 “protected statuses / characteristics”, unless following specific exclusions under the Act (marriage being one)

      2. They can believe in the Easter Bunny and make their views known to whom they please. But their supernatural notions have no business dictating the secular laws under which we must all live.

        1. “dictating the secular laws” — How are people speaking their minds ‘dictating the secular laws’? A Bishop is not the equivalent of a General Galtieri or some other secular dictator.

          1. Apart from the unelected bishops in the house of lords, who by the way are free to discriminate sexually and say that women are expressly not allowed to become hold the highest offices in their club.

          2. It is plainly what they aspire to do, something clearly revealed in the way they talk as though they have copyright over what marriage is and spout demonizing nonsense about people who just want equal access to civil marriage. Essentially the same people want to exempt Christians from obeying anti-discrimination laws incumbent on everyone else on the ground that their beliefs should grant them immunity. Basically the idea is ‘make everyone else live under laws shaped by a theology they do not share, and dispense us from obeying inconvenient laws made by anyone else’. No, thanks.

      3. Benjamin Kidd 31 Dec 2012, 10:48am

        I am sorry Klaus but being nasty to LGBT people as in saying we are sub human we are going to bring down the human race, we subvert children (erm they can talk) and using homophobic and transphobic language is not what I call condusive to nice views, they are supposed to be Christians… yes they are allowed their views, but when it comes to civil law they should remember it is just that CIVIL law notthier warped law. Could they not have left this til after Christmas… what happened to goodwill to mankind… well to them that would be goowill to mankind as long as they are not gay or trans or bi…

    2. And this is why there were laws against catholics in Britain getting involved in politics. A foreign church led by a foreign head of state. Insidious creeping interference in our democracy.

      If catholic members want to lobby their MP they don’t need a German religious leader who is head of another state to order them to do it.

      This is what comes of our state inviting him here and treating him like he matters. He should have been arrested for heading up an organisation that abuses children instead.

      These minions of his, beavering away in our country, and taking his orders to undermine the wishes of our people should be on an MI5 list.

      1. I’m afraid you are wasting your breath, twitless. The cult is so brainwashed that no amount of reasoned argument will sink in. Those on the inside are mind-slaves and all the atrocities the RCs have committed – and continue to commit – are ignored or excused by the faithful.

  2. At the link below is the full text of the “Reichskonkordat,” the political treaty between the Vatican and Adolf Hitler. At the time this treaty was signed, the anti-Jewish racial laws were already in force in Nazi Germany:
    Here is an example of what is in the treaty:
    Article 3
    In order to foster good relations between the Holy See and the German Reich, an apostolic nuncio will reside in the capital of the German Reich and an ambassador of the German Reich at the Holy See.
    http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showkb.php?org_id=858&kb_header_id=752&kb_id=1211

    1. John Jones 31 Dec 2012, 2:14am

      You do realise that the UK also had full diplomatic ties with Germany in 1933, with a resident Ambassador in Berlin (and a German one in London — who was later tried for war crimes) — a situation that lasted for another 6 years after that? On the other hand, Pope Pius XI explicitly condemned Nazism in the encyclical ‘Mit brennender Sorge’ (the first ever not to be published in Latin, but in the language of the people it was addressing), published in 1937 — two years before the UK formally began to criticise the Nazi regime (the UK Government allowed Nazi Germany to bulldoze its way through Europe right up until September 1939).

      1. John

        The Pope at that time was Pius XII. There is disagreement among historians on this issue. Hitler’s Pope by John Cornwell argues he colluded with Hitler, and The Myth of Hitler’s Pope by the Conservative American historian and Rabbi David G. Dalin that argues he saved many Jewish people and did what he could.

        My personal belief is that, given the absolutely appalling and colossal scale of evil and suffering caused by Hitler and the Nazis, it was inexcusable for Pius XII to appease Hitler. He should have threatened all German Catholics who colluded with Hitler with excommunication.

        If the Catholic Church really believes this world is a preparation for life in eternity hereafter, it should be prepared to tell Catholics to risk or sacrifice this life in order to oppose world war, unspeakable cruelty and genocide. Unfortunately, the Church is far too much concerned with worldly power.

        1. Gazza,

          I was actually talking about the pre-War pope, who was the first world leader to speak up against the Nazi regime, and did so in such a way that meant that every Catholic priest in Germany was forced to condemn Nazism from every pulpit in the country in 1937 – two years before the War and 5 years before the ‘Final Solution’. Pius XI condemned racism and all the other evils of Nazism. Needless to say, it led to a effective abolition of the concordat (which is just a diplomatic agreement), and to the murder of several priests.

          In fact, the Catholic Church then became the first institution to be persecuted to death under Nazism – the first people to be killed were the disabled and elderly (‘euthanasia’). The Jews were persecuted but not (then) being killed. Fear of persecution may have had an affect of the next pope’s thinking.

          The Church teaches that all war is evil — there is no longer such a thing as a ‘just war’. John Paul II condemned the 2nd Gulf War as a crime.

          1. John

            Yes, ‘Mit brennender Sorge’ was published under Pius XI: my mistake. My understanding though is that it fell very far short of a full-blooded condemnation of Nazism.

            I believe the popes did far too little to condemn Nazism outright and to warn Catholics they faced excommunication and damnation if they colluded with Hitler. The Church hierarchy has always been far more concerned with their own temporal power than anything else. If this life is really a preparation for eternity, then surely it is worth sacrificing in the service of preventing genocide, brutal repression, and world war.

            It is a matter of great concern that the Catholic Church opposes all war. Hitler would never have been stopped. The irony of the Catholic Church: stupidly left-wing on issues such as legitimate war: stupidly right-wing on issues such as LGBT rights.

  3. We need more documentaries and reports on TV exposing what an evil religion orthodox Roman Catholicism is.

    The state, and organs of the establishment, do far too much to uncritically publicise and appease the prejudices of this institution.

    For anyone who hasn’t read them yet, and has some Christmas gift money to spend, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, are brilliant reads.

    1. And The Case of the Pope (Penguin, 2010), by Geoffrey Robertson QC.

  4. The bigoted old queen is looking to become a cardinal. Lets hope he chokes on his internalised homophobia!

  5. Oh here we go again!! This is getting an old argument! When are these idiots going to realise having a mother and father together makes a difference??!! So they saying that if you have both you will not grow up to be LGBT?? Madness! It is people like this who give religion a bad name and its getting worse!!

  6. I’m sure the three or four letters from the blue rinse brigade that this exhortation causes to arrive in MPs’ offices will make all the difference in the world, Mr. Nichols. Keep on digging that hole…

  7. What can an aging celibate virgin (unless he is a child rapist) like NIcholls possibly know about marriage?

  8. Catholics, spreading their evil madness for thousands of years and still looking for Witches to burn who live in their sick and twisted minds. If ever there was a religion of hate they are it. Trying to control everybody and everything with their own kind of voo doo.

    1. ‘Jews, spreading their evil madness for thousands of years’

      Oh, sorry you are talking about Catholics and not jews ! As for the reference about burning witches , Catholics have never believed in ‘witches’ or burned them , but during the reign of James I /VI (a protestant) when Protestantism was the state religion (and still is) many so-called witches were put to death – ironically most were Catholics who had to practice their religion in secret.
      http://dspace.gla.ac.uk:8080/bitstream/1905/288/1/04kidd_mphil.pdf

      You seem rather ignorant of history and have your own prejudices.

      “Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals.”

  9. He reveals so much about his feelings for homosexuals by the way in which he tries to describe heterosexual marriage, ‘human nature’ etc etc.

    The implication being that it is inhuman to be gay.

    What does he want? 10% of the population to be celibate and unmarried, against their nature? Or worse, 10% of the population to be sleeping with, marrying, and having children with a sex that they aren’t attracted to?

    1. Yes, they would prefer sham marriage or lives of celibacy (we have seen what that can lead to) to expressing your sexuality in a committed relationship.

  10. Imagine the absurdity of being gay or bisexual and having anything whatsoever to do with this organisation, even worse having a gay or bisexual relative that you genuinely care about and belonging to this setup. What a betrayal that would be. It would be like having a left handed child and supporting an organisation that hates left handedness.

    1. Or being a gay Tory or Republicans

  11. You Tube :-Stephen Fry “the Catholic Church is not a force for good ” starts to get interesting after 10:40 mark . Nice to see him giving it to Ann Widdicombe (verbally) .just in case anybody thinks the RC church is just a load of harmless old men in party frocks

    1. Christopher Hitchens was even better at that. :)

    2. Oh, is that the Stephen Fry(Holocaust revisionist) who had to apologise to the Polish people for blaming them for the holocaust – and the Stephen Fry who wrote a gushing poem to Peter Tatchell on his birthday ….Tatchell who said :
      ‘The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of NINE to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great JOY”

      …wonder if Mr Tatchell (self-styled human right activist) told the police who the adults having sex with children were ?

      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100012872/stephen-frys-slur-against-polish-catholics-remember-which-side-of-the-border-auschwitz-was-on/

      Mr Fry forgets that the person he models his phoney persona on – Oscar Wilde (not a phoney) was received with open arms into the Catholic Church ! :)

      1. Dave North 31 Dec 2012, 7:10pm

        As long as he remained celibate.

        Not much of a life.

  12. “We first learn about diversity and acquire a respect for difference through the complementarity of our parents.”

    And they have the brass neck to call us ‘Orwellian’?
    This is doublethink straight out of the ministry of love – the dogwhistle message is if you weren’t brought up with a mummy and a daddy in a church sanctified nuclear family you’re a pariah.
    And it goes without saying they remain the cult who monitor our private thoughts and what happens in our bedrooms with a borderline obsessive zeal. Just think of confessional.
    I’m damn sure that if the Pope had the resources to install telescreens in every bedroom in the land he would.

  13. PeterinSydney 31 Dec 2012, 8:11am

    The Bishops are Nazi Ratzi’s SS storm troopers. And they should be treated as terrorists.

  14. Desperate straw clutching!

  15. What an arrogance the Catholic clergy pervade.

    After all the damage they have done to families around the globe they then purport to be some kind of experts of family.

    Where was this chaps voice when his ilk were abusing children on an industrial scale ?

  16. The Roman Cult is fighting to the death here. I believe that the Government will not want to be seen to cave in to them. I don’t expect MPs who have spoken in favour of SSM to change their minds purely on religious objections (they will have thought that through), however, the free vote is risky. We will soon see how much real power the churches have.

    1. Yes Cal- but even if the vote is initially lost- its not over.

      We are still here- and the fight for equality will go on and on and on!

      1. Quite right, John. And the main parties have committed themselves to equality so the worst that can happen is it gets slightly delayed.
        Equal age of consent didn’t get through first time. There was even more homophobic hysteria around that issue.

  17. Dave North 31 Dec 2012, 9:08am

    Strip these f#ck3rs of their tax exemption.

    They are fomenting insurrection against an elected PM.

    1. “They are fomenting insurrection against an elected PM.”

      WTF! I didn’t realise we were living in a dictatorship, and that anyone who spoke up against Dave Cameron and his cronies were now to be treated as traitors! (By the way, the PM is not legally important in the UK — he is merely the chief servant of the Head of State, who is the Queen.)

      1. They are using there faith based reasoning, or lack of, to influence political debate.

        This is an alien FOREIGN power. The vatican is a state recognised by the UN.

        Ergo. My comment remains true.

      2. Semantics. In reality the monarch has no power, their role is to advise, consult, and warn against actions which the monarch, using their own much greater experience of domestic / world affairs, thinks are ill-advised.
        Parliament could, remember, strip the monarch of much of their income (Civil List), or even declare a republic, though the public would prevent this.

        Oh, and Cameron was never elected, except as an MP. He is PM as the result of a very shady deal in a back room.

  18. We’re their last crusade. They need enemies to define them. They invent enemies to get wars to fight. It was us or the aliens.
    They’re loosing contact with reality. Sooner or later they’ll become as relevant as a medioeval carousel… Good barely for toristic interest.
    Hope to be still Alive when it’ll happen

    1. Dave North 31 Dec 2012, 7:11pm

      Pope Palpatine and the Last Crusade.

      Has a ring to it…..

  19. I was brought up a strict catholic but realised about the age of 13 that they were mostly talking bollocks.
    Thirty years on I’m still of the same opinion.
    They must be boring the pants off most except the die hards with this constant drivel.
    The Catholic church knows full well it has lost its strangle hold on Europe and is now concentrating its efforts in other countries where the people are still gullible enough to believe the bile they spill out.

  20. As a not very devout catholic this kind of message hurts me alot. I Think that it is the responsibilty of public figures be they religious leaders or seccular leadsers have a responsibilty to promote peace, tollerance and respect. This man is doing neither.

    1. I don’t mean to be unkind but I’m curious as to what keeps you in a faith that obviously despises you? Most people embrace faith for the “comfort” it brings or because they have been susceptible to the brainwashing from a young age. You say you are not very devout so the brainwashing hasn’t entirely worked.

  21. The more they come out with stuff like this the more irrelevant they become. The majority of people simply don’t agree.

    1. But they will get congregants to send in 1000’s of letters to their MPs. That could affect the HoC vote.

      1. I don’t think they will! We’ll have to see.

  22. ‘The true nature of marriage’, bishop?
    Meaning genital difference must trump love and commitment?
    Your view of ‘nature’ is frankly both trivial and obsessive. But keep sending mad letters to a flock most of whom have made it clear that they don’t agree with you. It’s a great way further to weaken a mischievous and repressive church.

  23. Interfering old sweetie wife.

    What next? Excommunication for any RC MP voting in favour.

  24. Helen Wilson 31 Dec 2012, 10:54am

    They are really poor at running campaigns! The postcard campaign they ran for the equal marriage consultation did not comply with the format of the consultation so all the postcards they sent in did not get included in the consultation. Now the announced they are conducting an organised campaign to contact MPs… I’m sure most reasonable MPs will disregard these contacts given the organised nature of the campaign.

  25. Here’s he goes again: Will someone rid us of this turbulent priest? (Metaphorically speaking, of course;)

  26. The current protections for Christian organisations in the proposed legislation for civil marriage are too weak. The common definition of marriage – one man and one woman – comes from Christianity. It is absurd to then suggest that Christians are bigots for wanting to retain the Christian definition of marriage!

    The LGBT community needs to persuade the civil authorities to include robust protections for churches etc when the definition off civil marriage is made more inclusive (or make civil partnerships the only state option for ALL?)

    1. Wrong on all counts I’m afraid. Bigoted and homophobic too. You should feel ashamed.

      The “one man and one woman” marriage specification has nothing to do with the christian cult, save that said cult has parasitised it and made it one of their focal dogmas over the years. It is a very widespread social convention that derives from underlying patriarchal cultural norms that have existed throughout the world for millennia – this kind of marriage was well known in hundreds of ancient pre-christian cultures. christians didn’t get into the marriage business at all until about the 9th century AD, and not on a wide scale before the 12th. Before this they regarded it as the secular civil convention it has always been.

      And if the “christian” definition of marriage is itself bigoted (which it is) then standing up for it is bigoted too, as is standing up for the right of bigots to be bigots instead of standing up for full equality.

      1. You call me a bigot but spew hateful words about a “christian cult” that has “parasitised” something.

        You only pretend to care about your Christian LGBT brothers and sisters. You only support them for being gay. You have nothing but hateful and bigoted things to say about their faith. You should feel ashamed.

        1. Dave North 31 Dec 2012, 7:07pm

          No.

          Christians should feel ashamed for the poison they have vomited over every decent thing they touch.

        2. 1. I have no “LGBT christian brothers and sisters”. The use of family language to describe non-familial relations, in an attempt to smuggle over some of the importance of those relations, is yet another piece of parasitisation that religious groups have foist upon us.

          2. christianity is a cult. All religious groups are That’s a simple fact. The word “cult” is better than “religion” for describing it in English, because “cult” has connotations of being sinister, extreme and ridiculous, which the christian cult most emphatically is, where “religion” has positive connotations that simply do not belong with this particular brand of mind-rot.

          3. It has, like all religions do, parasitised the culture of the people who cultivate it. How else would you describe taking credit for inventing something you demonstrably did not, then pretending you alone has some special authority in it?

          And yes, I do support people in being gay. If they are religious, I tell them to grow up and get over it!

    2. Chipsy

      If the definition of “one man and one woman” marriage comes from Christianity, then how come the institution of marriage has existed in Buddhist countries for centuries, and existed before Christianity came into being?

      This tradition predates Christianity. As does slavery, by the way. And as does the idea of democracy as giving the vote only to men. Just because something is a longstanding tradition, doesn’t mean it is right, or cannot be improved on.

      It is typically arrogant for Christians to claim they are the final arbiters of the definition of marriage. If the majority of the people and the state want civil LGBT marriage, that is exactly what we will have.

      There are plenty of protections in place for religionists. When did the ECHR force the C of E or Catholic Church to appoint women bishops, or host CP ceremonies, or marry divorced people? Where in the EU has it imposed SSM on churches where it has already been legal for years?

      1. I was talking about Britain (and Europe).

        The current law also prohibits “bigamy”. If we ever decide to amend the “civil” definition of marriage to include plural marriage then it would also be absurd to claim Christians are bigots for supporting plural marriage.

        1. “not supporting plural marriage”

    3. By your faulty logic there’s no such thing as bigotry. The racist definition of marriage – two people of the same race – comes from Racism. It is absurd to then suggest that Racists are bigots for wanting to retain the Racist definition of marriage!

      Just because their bigotry comes from a traditional culture, interlarded with appeals to magic sky-tyrants and talking snakes, that doesn’t get them off the hook for it. It’s still bigotry, still homophobia, whether it is hallowed by centuries of pious warbling or cooked up the very same morning. One has a choice whether to accept the bigotries of a particular group of people, and by choosing to do so one chooses to be a bigot.

      So no, there should be no “protections” AT ALL for churches. Their antiquated homophobic bigotry has no place in a civilized society, and should be stamped out root and branch along with all the rest of the bigotry. These institutions must change, and if they won’t do it themselves they must be forced to by law.

      1. Racism is a form of bigotry. So of course a racist definition of marriage would be bigoted!!

        You are implying that Christianity itself should be eradicated? The soviets pursued that goal and it wasn’t pretty (as well as being a total failure).

        If civil partnerships amount to the same thing as marriages (which is what Stonewall kept telling us), why doesn’t the state provide CPs as the only option for everyone and let churches etc cater for all the superstitious stuff about special definitions that people want to “believe in”? I have yet to see an article in the gay press that explains what is so “magical” about the word marriage.

        1. Homophobia is a form of bigotry. A form of christianity that teaches homophobic things is homophobic. Therefore the homophobic christian definition of marriage is homophobic. It doesn’t have to be – people calling themselves christians could (and many do) go for a non-homophobic definition. In choosing to go with a homophobic one, they are homophobes – it’s that simple.

          And while nothing would please me more than seeing the mind-rot of christian thought gone from the world for good, there is a big difference between calling something vile and bigoted and seeking to eradicate its adherents by force. People are allowed to be bigoted in their thinking, what we must not do is allow their bigotry to influence the law and trump equality, or give them special rights to put their bigotry into action at others’ expense. Big difference there. Big difference.

          And what is “magical” about the word marriage is precisely the cultural prestige and cachet it has. We deserve that prestige too.

    4. Robert in S. Kensington 31 Dec 2012, 1:02pm

      CIvil marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with christianity and was invented by the state to allow divorced people to remarry who are banned from a religious marriage. No mandate to procreate either. Nobody is forcing any religion to marry us, haven’t you read the government protection for opting in by choice? The ban on the CoE and Wales is so robust, the Archbishop of Wales isn’t happy about it and thinks it went a step too far.

      You’re delusional if you think CPs should be the only option. The so called ‘chrisitans’ opposed to equal marriage would be the first to protest and we all know why, so too would many who only have access to civil marriage, you know, the serial Tory adulterers like Sir Roger Gale and other adulterers such as Tory MPs Bob Blackman and Nadine Dorries.

      1. I’m not opposed to civil “marriage equality”. I support legal equality for same-sex couples – and Muslim men who want to “marry” more than one woman. Which is why I think CPs for everyone is the only way out of this mess. Take the state out of the market for the “true meaning of words”. Leave religious people alone to argue over that one.

        1. The state is not the final arbiter of the meaning of words. The people who use them are. But the state’s laws are written in words, English words, and legal definitions are an important influence on colloquial usage. There is a feedback relationship there.

          What equal marriage laws do is enshrine a fair, tolerant, just and equal definition in law, not a bigoted and homophobic one. That is an important thing to do. They recognise that the word “marriage” IS gender-neutral in the language today, rather than trying to pretend that it is still the 1950s and the word isn’t gender-neutral. The law has to take a side on this, and it is important that it takes the side of equality.

    5. Ah Chipsy, you have fallen for the misdirection and lies of the various christian organisations. Please allow me to correct your misapprehension.
      The “union of one man and one woman” does not in fact stem from christianity at all. In fact the various teachings of the bible categorically state that marriage is, in many cases, polygamous.
      The phrase and benchmark “union of one man and one woman” actually originates from the a 19th century legal case where a man following the mormon teachings wished to marry a second woman (in addition to his first wife). The judge stated in his ruling that ‘I conceive that marriage, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others’.

      It was not a general statement for all marriages, rather a definition/distinction to be made for the purposes of that legal case.

      One bubble. Burst.

      1. Fell asleep in RE class?

    6. Dave North 31 Dec 2012, 1:33pm

      “include robust protections for churches”

      And making it ILLEGAL for the CofE to conduct equal marriages is not robust enough.

      Pray tell how much more robust they could make it.

      Words fail me. These people are never happy.

      1. That only applies to the CoE – and they didn’t ask for it or want it!!

        Civil partnerships as the only option for everyone would be fairer. Then religious organisations could do what they liked according to their faith traditions – which would also include faiths that accept plural marriages. Where is the LGBT support for Muslim marriage equality?

        1. Dave North 31 Dec 2012, 7:06pm

          This is NOT a muslim country “yet”.

          I pick my fights with the established church of this country, the CofE.

          The one with the 26 bishops in our house of Lords who have the power to make or break this legislation.

          The catholic church is on shaky ground here.

          The Vatican is a UN recognized state trying to interfere with UK democracy.

          1. So you admit to being an anti-Muslim bigot?

        2. CP’s are not recognized as marriages abroad, and using this proposal, no marriage would be legally recognised abroad (because it would simply be a religious ceremony with no legal meaning). Redefining civil marriage and allowing religions to discriminate how they like is a better solution. At the end of the day marriage is a concept, nobody really owns it and different people and groups have different definitions.

          And I agree, there’s no reason really why we can’t legally permit polygamy. As long as everyone involved gives informed consent (say a woman wants to marry a second partner, it’d be easy enough to check the records and sent a legal notification to the first) I don’t have a problem with that. The reality though is there’s no demand for that at the moment, but I’m sure it’ll come.

  27. If I wanted advice about marriage the last person I would go to is an unmarried celibate.

    1. I highly doubt that many priests are celibate, if they’re not raping kids they’re having affairs with parishioners.

  28. Robert in S. Kensington 31 Dec 2012, 12:57pm

    We should all bombard him with our own opinions and remind him of his cult’s appalling history and crimes against humanity including gay people. His sanctimonious bullsh_t about the importance of family is risible given the paedophilia scandal and cover up, not just against boys but girls too. This is nothing more than a Vatican orchestrated agenda to foment hate-mongering and subverting our government, bullying it into submission.

    .

  29. At the risk of repeating myself:

    Catholics REFUSED communion: Anyone who supports marriage equality.

    Catholics given a BLESSING by the pope: Those promoting execution of gay people.

    Please, “cultural Catholics”, midnight mass-attending LGBTs, “our local priest is all right” gay-friendly churchgoers – please, all of you, think about the Roman Catholic church’s attitude to vulnerable groups like LGBTs and children, and consider carefully whether to continue to associate yourself with this organisation.

    On the letter-writing point, they haven’t done enough to sway the Commons. But the more Tory MPs who vote no while banging on about receiving thousands of constituents’ letters, the more the Lords will be emboldened to drag this out.

    My New Year’s resolution is to get all those friends and family in Tory constituencies who haven’t yet done so to write to their MPs.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 31 Dec 2012, 2:35pm

      I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting supporters to go on a letter-writing campaign. Many of them are apathetic and disinterested including some gay people, sadly. The religious right are mobilised, determined more than ever, but we’re not as evidenced by the lack of one important political figure in Parliament, other than Lynne Featherstone, to counter the hateful, mendacious rhetoric. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband should issue a joint statement and not be so politically correct or deferrential to any of them. It’s time the gloves came off.

  30. Given that the catholic church is now trying to directly influence British politics, it should have it’s tax exempt status revoked…

  31. Keep it up Archbishop Nichols… thank you for doing all this for the Gay community all your comments are raising new values that the ordinary people of the world can think about and see that you are wrong…All this advertising is costing us nothing….The Lord works in mysterious ways….

  32. As usual those fucking old bastard speak about something they don’t know or prefer to not understand. I think Roman Catholic Church as well as the Westboro Baptist church should be consider as hate group all around the world.

  33. I am catholic and gay and that is why I don’t go to church anymore when I hear this kind of comment from priest, bishops, or archbishop, cardinal and even the pope spreading this kind of homophobic article when the catholic religion is supposed to be based on love of everyone and anyone whatever their sexuality is. happy new year

  34. Since when has the Catholic church been a respectable authority on the issues of child welfare?
    Being on the “wrong side” of history in regards to same sex marriage, will eventually lead to it being one of the final nails in the already dying Catholic church.
    My only hope is I’m still around to watch this hate fuelled bigoted fantasy organisation crumble into dust.
    It’s not an issue of “if” but “when”

    1. Listening to the RC Church lecturing us on child welfare is like reading a book by Harold Shipman on geriatric healthcare!

  35. These ‘commands’ from the Catholic hierarchy to the faithful seem to be becoming increasingly desperate, a bit like Hitler’s commands for non-existent Panzer divisions to protect Berlin. Most Catholics ignore the Pope on contraception and abortion, so I can’t imagine them getting energetic about equal marriage..

  36. Then, perhaps the LGBT community should bombard the catholic worshippers with some Stonewall postcards.

  37. Mike Marshall 1 Jan 2013, 6:23am

    I’m a Catholic. I’ve asked my current MP and my previous MP to vote for equal marriage and they both agreed. I dont know a single Catholic in the clergy or thr congregation who agrees with Dr. Nicholls. The Christian religion is based on values such as compassion, equality and love. What a shame that His Grace has forgotten this.

    1. It always saddens me to see these church leaders speak so hatefully, they should know better. What was it again, “Judge not, lest…”

  38. Jock S. Trap 1 Jan 2013, 8:43am

    It’s clear to all the Roman Catholics here are bigoted and against any form of democracy. Dictating at will is not good for society, is not progressive to a better humanity.

    Let these vile people rot in their own anger but away from the decency of a modern non-discriminatory society.

    1. Funny how when Cardinal O’Brien suggested that the scottish people should be able to vote (hold a referendum) if they want marriage redefined , the so-called ‘equality’ lobby suddenly got panic attacks and tried to move the debate away from democracy ! It’s the homosexual lobby who make up less than 0.25% of the population who can’t abide democracy.With over two-thirds of people against any change to redefine marriage , we all know who the regressives are !.

  39. this man has No right to vote in this country he should mind his own business. Perhaps we should all write to our M.Ps calling for the repeal of the 1829 Catholic Emancipation Act?

    1. I agree. Britain was ‘intolerant’ to Roman Catholics for a good reason
      prior to that act in the sense that these people owed their allegience to a foreign head of state and couldn’t be trusted. Perhaps, it is is time to ban the Roman Catholic church in Britain if its leaders can’t keep-out of politics.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all