Tatchell condemns ‘Christian bigots’
Yet during his concluding remarks, Cardinal Kasper reiterated the uncompromising position of the Roman Catholic Church that ‘homosexual activity is disordered’. No discussion, no debate, no conference to seek the diverse views of sundry homophiliac theologians or academics.
So why does Mr Tatchell not protest outside the Vatican?
Or is it simply that it easier to hurl insults at those closer to home with whom one does not agree, ‘bigot’ being the easiest?
Cranmer notes the thoughts of Charles Moore on the matter:
“Almost every time you read an article commenting on people who, for religious reasons, disapprove of homosexual marriage, practising homosexuals becoming priests and so on, you find the word ‘bigot’ used. Even intelligent commentators seem to think it unarguable that such attitudes are bigoted. Why? To this day, all the mainstream monotheistic religions of the world take the view that homosexual acts are wrong, and they have reasons of scripture and wider moral teaching to back this up. Believers who maintain that view in the face of modern social pressure are only following their faith, just as Christians would be if they opposed polygamy, suttee or euthanasia. The word ‘bigoted’ does have an accepted meaning. It does not mean ‘religious’, or even ‘fervently religious’. Bigotry is the obstinate and blind, often nasty and hypocritical, attachment to a particular creed. No doubt some people who oppose gay marriages are indeed like this — venting hatred towards homosexuals (which their religion forbids) — but many are decent, conscientious and thoughtful. Isn’t it rather bigoted, in fact, to assume that your opponents on certain subjects are bigots? It is like the way anyone who criticises Islamist extremism will find himself described as ‘Islamophobic’.”