The Real Reason for Newtown Shootings »« It Appears I’ve Started An ‘Atheist Cult’

Bishop: Gay Marriage Like Communism, Fascism

You would think that, of all organizations, the Roman Catholic Church would be a bit more careful before throwing out comparisons to Adolf Hitler. An organization with any sense of shame would. But a high-ranking church official has once again compared marriage equality to the Nazis. This time it’s Mark Davies, the Bishop of Shrewsberry, who used his Christmas homily to make that odious comparison:

Past generations have gathered in this cathedral on Christmas night amid many shadows which seemed to obscure the future for them.

We think of the ideologies of the past century, Communism and Nazism, which in living memory threatened to shape and distort the whole future of humanity.

These inhuman ideologies would each challenge in the name of progress the received Christian understanding of the sanctity of human life and the family. Winston Churchill, Britain’s wartime Prime Minister, a man without clear, religious belief, saw in this deadly struggle nothing less than the defense of Christian civilization.

Few of our political leaders today appear to glimpse the deeper issues when the sanctity of human life and the very identity of marriage, the foundation of the family, are threatened…

This Christmas we are also conscious of new shadows cast by a Government that was pledged at its election to support the institution of marriage.

The Prime Minister has decided without mandate, without any serious consideration, to redefine the identity of marriage itself, the foundation of the family for all generations to come. This is again done in the name of progress. The British people have reason to ask on this night where is such progress leading?

To genuine freedom and equality, which is of course why the Catholic Church opposes it, as they have opposed every move toward those things for centuries.

Comments

  1. jaxkayaker says

    If the RCC hierarchy were capable of feeling shame, they wouldn’t have covered up and apologized for child rape.

  2. says

    You mean the church that collaborated with the Nazis now thinks Nazis are bad?
    I’d suggest an irony meter for this dude in a dress, but I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t last five minutes.

  3. alanb says

    This morning the Google led me to the UK version of HuffPo (I didn’t know there was such a thing). In the right-hand column there were links to 2 articles almost next to each other. From yesterday, “The Archbishop of Westminster has described the Government’s plans for gay marriage as undemocratic and a ‘shambles’.” (Emphasis added.) From today, “Some 62% of those questioned by pollsters ICM Research for The Guardian said that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, against 31% who oppose the change and 7% who did not know.” Strange definition of undemocratic, that.

  4. says

    Something I’ve long been peripherally aware of is the propensity for right-wingers and religios both to employ emotional arguments. Those usually turn me off, rather than get me fired up for their side. What I haven’t been able to find is liberals and nonbelievers doing the same thing, or to the same degree.

    I’d be very grateful if someone could point me towards some genuine, evenhanded analysis of this situation. Is my perception of the lopsided usage of emotional arguments correct? Or do I not see the ones employed by “my side” because of a blind spot, that I agree with them? Do I only see the ones I disagree with?

  5. anubisprime says

    The RCC tried several ‘arguments’ on why they reject Gay marriage.

    They even tried to withdraw from adoption agencies if they had to allow gay parents to participate…
    When that did not work they only twisted their own doctrine in adoption to rule.
    They would allow a gay parent to adopt but they must not be in a relationship.
    But one of their oft trumpeted corner stones of their policy was that there must be two parents to allow adoption to go ahead.
    Because seemingly it is a a better choice then a single parent.
    So they even consider ignoring their own rules when convenient.

    When cornered they rant froth and rave about morality and some incoherent and actually unspecified threat to marriage as an institution.
    And it is all ‘love the sinner not the sin’…dah de dah de dah!

    Well they tried all that…it is failing to impress, so now they go all hysterical and revert to bogeyman scenarios and trying to frame the issue as a ‘evil’ regime intent on destroying humanity.

    Remember the excuses they trotted out in the wake of their paedo scandals?
    About the gays infiltrating their ranks to gain access to their victims, well that was shot down in flames fairly rapidly, they changed tack a little after that embarrassment, it seems they have gone back to absolutely ridiculous claims again, they never seem to learn, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

    This latest bollix is a gamble considering their history with Hitler…they are so focussed on demonizing these relationships that they are seemingly prepared to risk a very risky claim.

    Benny is leading them all down a dark alley singing ave maria off key, they might regret this excursion into utter gobbly gook land, and dug themselves a little deeper into the tar pit of history.

  6. Red-Green in Blue says

    I do wonder sometimes whether, if I were still a Catholic as I was brought up, I would have still had the same shocked reaction to the bishop’s words as I do. I wonder how many people would have stood up and walked out of Christmas Mass, and why those who didn’t stayed seated. Through fear of “making a fuss” or because they really agreed with him? (Neither bodes very well but I’d rather the former)

    PS. Ed, a small typo: it’s Shrewsbury, not Shrewsberry. Or “Yr Amwythig” if you want to please the Welsh – as you should: in the poll published today on marriage equality, they are the most supportive nation of the UK :)

  7. Max Hannan says

    Yeah apparently they reject david Camron’s statement that ‘marriage should follow love and commitment’ (or something) apparently, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Say whut?!

  8. anubisprime says

    Red-Green in Blue @ 8

    I wonder how many people would have stood up and walked out of Christmas Mass, and why those who didn’t stayed seated

    Doofus of Shrewsbury is pitching his contemptible rhetoric at the fence sitters here methinks.

    No doubt a few agree with the utter banality, and it is odds on the majority of those are unaware of just how far in cahoots the RCC were with the Nazi thing in the late 1930′s.
    There will also be a significant few that know all about the RCC shenanigans, but conveniently ignore, but will nod heads sagely like good little muppets they are.
    I would think that the majority would cringe inwardly, because Benny tried to paint atheism and secular authority with that brush during his visit to Blighty a while back…the tactic rather fell flat and there were a few muted sniggers from the media but nothing overly embarrassing for the poncetiff!
    But his comments were not taken up and headlined as he was no doubt hoping for!
    From that POV he made a prat of himself!

    But these bozos are fighting a rearguard action here on a subject they are losing badly on, they are indeed desperate and as I suggest are aiming the spiel at the undecided.
    I think they are totally blinded by their intense hatred and fail to see the moronic in their pathetic campaign.

    They have lost the battle in Scotland already…they will lose it in England as well eventually, despite a ham fisted government attempt to appease the churches of all denominations…folks are getting rather tired of the churches hysteria, it is a no brainer for the 21st century, the majority of the population agree!

  9. jonathangray says

    barefootbree:

    Something I’ve long been peripherally aware of is the propensity for right-wingers and religios both to employ emotional arguments. Those usually turn me off, rather than get me fired up for their side. What I haven’t been able to find is liberals and nonbelievers doing the same thing, or to the same degree.

    I’d be very grateful if someone could point me towards some genuine, evenhanded analysis of this situation. Is my perception of the lopsided usage of emotional arguments correct? Or do I not see the ones employed by “my side” because of a blind spot, that I agree with them? Do I only see the ones I disagree with?

    Sort of relevant:

    http://alastairadversaria.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/of-triggering-and-the-triggered-part-4/

  10. vmanis1 says

    During the marriage equality process in Canada, the RCs tried a fascinating argument: marriage equality discriminates against those who aren’t LGBT. What about a father and daughter, or two brothers, or two heterosexual friends who want to make a longterm commitment, e.g., if one was the caregiver of the other? This argument was trotted out by enough priests and bishops that I imagine they got it from some central anti-gay resource center within the Church, but it didn’t last too long, not even long enough for me to write a letter to the newspaper pointing out the gaping flaw: marriage has a sexual component (in Catholicism, one ground for annulling a marriage is if it was never consummated), and therefore it was tantamount to advocating incest.

    Speaking of letters to the editor, I was amused by an anti-condom letter that appeared in the Vancouver Sun a few years ago. The author cited a paper that appeared in a journal on polymors [sic] that purported to prove that condoms have a high failure rate. I did a search for this paper, getting something like seven hits; I couldn’t find that the paper had been cited anywhere. The actual paper was behind a paywall, so I didn’t read it, but I have no idea what actual conclusions it drew. I had to admire the perspicacity of the letter’s author, who could find such an obscure paper without ever learning to spell `polymer’. Perhaps if the priest had had a whiteboard…

  11. Sastra says

    Few of our political leaders today appear to glimpse the deeper issues when the sanctity of human life and the very identity of marriage, the foundation of the family, are threatened…

    I’m curious, though I doubt my curiosity will ever be satisfied. What would someone who knew nothing about the actual issue — someone who has presumably been living in a cave somewhere for years and years but a perfectly normal and reasonable someone nevertheless — think the Bishop is talking about, given only this passage?

    Assume they know about the Nazis. Assume they know about the atrocities of the Soviet state under Stalin. Now they read the comparison, the rhetoric, the country’s failure to support the institution of marriage from a very, very, dangerous threat. What would they think is going on? What sort of horrible “redefinition” is surely taking place here — and does it involve “camps” of some kind?

    Of course, I’d also have to assume this hypothetical person did NOT know much about the Catholic Church, or they just might automatically lower the bar on what constitutes an outrage and guess it had something to do with consensual sex. Again.

  12. Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven says

    Jeez, he died nearly 70 years ago and STILL everything reminds them of their old bed buddy?

  13. Crudely Wrott says

    . . . the identity of marriage itself, the foundation of the family . . .

    Which is, not to put too fine a point on it but to give a useful definition:
    *Making babies
    *Having food
    *Having shelter
    *Staying warm
    *Being able to kick back and think novel thoughts
    *Treating illness
    *Listening to older folks who just might have something useful to say
    *Having someone to hold when you just need someone to hold
    *Insuring that the above mentioned babies mature to the point that they can take care of you
    *(Many more things that I’m sure you can think of that help to ensure survival in a world that is often dark and inhospitable

    All of these are purely human endeavors and require only the application of human mind and muscle and, most importantly, cooperation and compassion. The two often come in the same package. No magic is required.

    That such a survival strategy has become surrounded by a miasma of ritual is not surprising. Every other thing that people do has been so encumbered so as to help the reluctant or slow witted to maintain the legacy.

    However, two people committing to one another for any reason that they see as fitting predates any concept of marriage by millennia. Religion is a Johnny come lately. It should be recognized and tolerated as the minimum recognition of those who think that religion is a desirable diversion from the actual business of survival. That’s how we accommodate one another.

    Other than that, religion is no big deal and has no place whatsoever in the larger affairs of humanity which are chiefly concerned with bettering the state of all people in the real world in real time. A task at which magical beliefs have shown themselves to be only a little better than useless.

  14. anubisprime says

    Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven @ 17

    It seems the religios have retreated to invoking bogeyman tactics.
    Because that is what they do to generation unto generation.
    This is not a winning formula in the long run.
    Simply because they are running out of ‘ebil spirits’ to conjure up as time ticks on!

    The traditional bogeymen of Stalin…Pol Pot…Hitler…Mao…etc are fading in the collective psyche and there are only a few alive now that remember the reality under such urbane leaders.

    The RCC is running out of ‘heroes’ to trot out and frighten the sheeples back onto the straight and narrow.
    And considering they were in cahoots with quite a few of them at some not insignificant level or other, they seem very gung ho in trotting out their scarecrow of choice at any and every opportunity.

    But maybe, well definitely I would hazard. they are gambling that folks have only heard the sanctioned history.
    RCC involvement with these doyennes of humanity has been expunged from many records by now, perhaps they are feeling like lucky punks!
    They are trading on the innate paranoid fear that seems to stain the world historical back story, the malevolent shapeless vague shadow of things that were and they are gambling on short specific memories in those they are haranguing.

    They tread the path of a real danger of being sidelined, because they are fast losing relevancy, impact and cogency, which they undoubtedly are in ever increasing numbers, by a younger more informed traditional victim stock, they are coming across as old men in farcical hats and pretty outrageous dresses waving a shaking stick at shadows and gambolling around the fringes of society with wild eyes and muttering prophesies of doom and destruction with a ‘ woe woe and thrice woe’ mantra.
    They also think they should be respected and they demand allegiance and unwavering fealty at every turn, because it is simple dynamics…they fail at driving the sheep because the sheep have other ideas they lose the flock!
    As always and throughout history, they will be regarded as the mad raggedy smelly old nutty sexually dysfunctional hermits demanding scraps of discarded food, a few goofy acolytes and tax concessions, and gold good for a laugh and a bit of on-speck entertainment, but nothing and in no way more then an anachronism.
    Every village needs its eccentric, anarchic, ignorant useless fool, telling ghost, ghoulish and supernatural stories around the camp-fire, frightening the kiddies, and adults alike, and pretending they actually talk to gods and can act as the go-between b’twixt ‘n’ b’tween our corporal harsh cold world and the other side of the veil which is green grass, warm sunshine and never failing harvest as far as the eye can see, with angels thrown in for good measure!…if only the listeners would believe every word they say!

    They seem keen on relegating themselves back to that previous position in society, they are more at home there and not half so embarrassing.
    The trick is to remember is that they were only ever there to while away the evening hours and entertain by their made up fantastical stories…but they should never be taken seriously enough to become a hierarchical figure with real influence on the tribe and its fortunes.
    Because we have seen what they do when they are!

  15. sheila says

    Excuse me, the Nazis persecuted gays. So how exactly is legalising gay marriage like persecuting gays?

  16. anubisprime says

    sheila @ 21

    Excuse me, the Nazis persecuted gays. So how exactly is legalising gay marriage like persecuting gays?

    The cogency and precise logic the RCC employ in their ‘ahem’ arguments is absolutely breathtaking is it not?

  17. pamsmigh says

    My understanding is that the orders came down from on high to use the Christmas services as a reason to rail against gay marriage, abortion, etc. The thinking being, apparently, “Hey, the Chreasters only come to church on Christmas and Easter, might as well try to sway them to our line of thinking by brilliant sermons that vilify the dirty gays and whore-y women.”

    What I think they forgot in their calculus, is that the Chreasters don’t go to church for a reason. And sitting there in a pretty church all lit up w/candles and listening to Christmas carols isn’t going to outweigh the idiocy they hear coming from the pulpit – whose idiocy sounds even more idiotic to ears now unaccustomed to contorted logic being treated as shiny wisdom from God.

  18. joe321 says

    sheila @ 21

    You obviously have never heard the joke: “Gays should be allowed to marry. Why should heterosexuals be the only ones suffering!”

    That of course is just a joke; you raise a very valid point.

Leave a Reply