Vatican newspaper compares marriage equality to communism

Print More
Gay Marriage Vatican

Faced with recent setbacks in the United States and in Europe, the Catholic Church has intensified its increasingly uphill battle against gay marriage. *Note: This image is not available to download. RNS photo courtesy Shutterstock.

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

(RNS) Faced with recent setbacks in the United States and in Europe, the Catholic Church has intensified its increasingly uphill battle against gay marriage, and embraced a theory that compares marriage equality to communism. By Alessandro Speciale.

  • Pingback: Vatican Journalist Compares Marriage Equality to Communism « Bondings 2.0()

  • Pingback: Vatican newspaper compares marriage equality to communism()

  • St. Julian

    Seems to me there is another …ism that could be applied in viewing the Vatican’s approach.

  • ufosrreal

    Scaraffia is correct: to equate marriage between men and women with unions between homosexuals is a “negation of truth.” Duddy-Burke proves this when she says that such institutions (marriage) are not limited by sexual orientation — yes they are, homosexual marriage has never been recognized in the history of mankind — and that love and commitment transcend gender — so, what is that supposed to mean? I love my pets and am committed to them, does that mean that I should be able to marry them too? Progressives/Socialists/Communists are delusional. They need a good helping of tough love!

  • Brista

    (Raspberries) to those who think that queers should get married! Unless I’m reading my Bible wrong, marriage is between one man and one woman period. Nations that allowed such abominations to go on and presented them as perfectly normal have been destroyed. Sodom and Gomorrah, the Hittites, the Hivites, the Amorites and a bunch others come to mind. If you don’t want America to be included on that list, then we are gonna have to pray like never before that GOD will intervene our behalf to hearts and minds of the Congressmen and the Supreme Court justices that marriage should stay between one man and one woman and not try to redefine it to include perversions such as between two members of the same sex!!!!!!!!!

  • Seymour Kleerly

    I agree with the writers ideas about the problem with total equality. The answer is that the term “marriage” implies a man and a women. No one thought back then that any society would question the term. Also, Communism would never have come close to allowing Gay marriage. They were more Conservative on those issues than the “Free World”.

  • Sarah

    You must be reading your Bible wrong if you think marriage is between one man and one woman- The Bible gives countless examples of one man, MANY women. That said, I’m not suggesting that I support polygamy, but with that in mind I’d like to use that to display how societal “norms” do change.

    “Wives, be submissive to your husband, as is proper in The Lord” Colossians 3:18

    Exactly how many of you opposing marriage equality based on Scripture ALSO follow the Bible literally when it comes to verses referencing a different cultural norm?

    God blessed us with reason. Use it.

  • Gilbert Cantlin

    Like ignorance-ism and mean-spirit-ism?

  • Gilbert Cantlin

    Lucetta Scaraffia demonstrates that she is not much of a historian, certainly no longer a feminist, and only a spokesperson for her latest interest, the Vatican. When churchmen like the Archbishop of Paris generalize the success of their attempted sexual evangelization to include Jews and Muslims, they are being plainly deceitful. Conservative Jews and almost all Muslims, as a tenet of their Koran, have always officially opposed sexual relations between members of the same sex. They are not converts to any Catholic evangelism.

    Since Benedict XVI can recognize that same-sex marriage is not a faith issue, it seems he is stepping on ground beyond his Catholic theology which is supposedly his expertise. If marriage is “inscribed in human nature itself” and “common to all humanity,” that would certainly include homosexuals who are part of “human nature” and “humanity,” so Benedict undermines his own arguments.

    Relationships are facts, including same-sex relationships. Therefore, Scaraffia undermines her efforts to demonstrate logic as much as her claim to be an historian. I guess that allows her to remain a “former” feminist. I wonder what her history, her logic, and her theology were then. Scaraffia displays a sad illiteracy about the difference between the old Soviet communism and socialism.

    Marianne Duddy-Burke exposes both Benedict’s and Scaraffia’s weak arguments. Love, including sexual and non-sexual love, implies commitment of various durations. In ancient times, writers of both Old and New Testaments, like everyone else, knew little and admitted less about homosexuality. That does not mean that it was not a reality then just as it has always been. Even in earlier modern times, sexuality was not a topic of “proper” discussion. Homosexuality even less so. That is only part of what has kept it in dark ignorance for so long. Homosexuality is not at all new, just our admission, recognition, and understanding of it.

    One must ask how a very large group of celibate, presumably chaste men would know and understand so much about sexuality. Scaraffia’s presumption that anyone can be truly happy without full equality in basic human rights is not worthy of argument. She proves that with her nonsensical comparison of those rights with bell towers of different heights during the French Revolution. Archbishop Andre Vingt-Trois ought to be an expert in that.

    Again, Scaraffia proves what a poor historian she is when she equates Communism with socialism. What about all the “communism” in Catholic religious orders? Because the Catholic Church is still so large and loud, its voice can be heard by many, even many of different belief systems and those with no belief system. That does not mean they agree. It does not mean many converts. And it does not mean others did not think along the same lines as Benedict long before he defined homosexuality as “intrinsically evil” in one of his early, pretentious defenses for John Paul II against the sexual abuse of under-age boys and girls by their sinful, criminal clergy.

  • wtf, Colossians 3:18 doesn’t talk about polygamy, come on! stop using the Bible to fit in your weird ideas, that’s blasphemous.

  • Sarah

    You’re right, it doesn’t. The verse listed, Colossians 3:18, speaks specifically of being submissive to your husband, which I included IN ADDITION to what should be fairly understood Biblical examples of taking many wives. There is do distortion by using either example, and I fear no blasphemy.
    Again, use your reason…

  • Sarah

    *no distortion