top of page
  • Writer's pictureCourtney Heard

This Could Be The Most Absurd Catholic Lament I’ve Ever Read

As if we haven’t had enough Catholic cry-babyism, David Mills has gone and outdone himself bitching and moaning about something that wasn’t actually even said. He’s constructed a straw man so huge, it’s making Ron Jeremy jealous.

Last week, The New York Times published this piece about a gay couple who were told they could not be in choir, receive communion or take on any other roles in their church after they tied the knot. Frank Bruni, who wrote the NYT op-ed, said:

The Catholic Church does incalculable good, providing immeasurable comfort — material as well as spiritual — to so many. But it contradicts and undercuts that mission when it fails to recognize what more and more parishioners do: that gay people deserve the same dignity as everyone else, certainly not what happened to the Montana couple. If Francis and his successors don’t get this right, all his other bits of progress and pretty words will be for naught.

For the sake of my blog post here, let’s just suspend our disgust at the statement, “The Catholic Church does incalculable good” and act as though it’s true. Let’s pretend that the Catholic church gives shelter, food and clothing to the poor with no other motive than to provide care, love and aid. Let’s forget there’s a hidden agenda, and go ahead and just accept that Catholic “charity” is pure. I know… It’s difficult…

Well, David Mills, a Christian blogger at Patheos, read this paragraph in Frank Bruni’s piece and responded with:

There you have it: the interests of some homosexuals who want to be married — a minority of a small percentage of the population — trumps the needs of the poor for whom Francis speaks so constantly and insistently.


Something is indeed fucky, Bubbles.

Oh, David. Oh, dear, sweet David. I haven’t much choice but to venture out on a limb and assume English is not your first language and you relied on a translation tool to read Frank’s article. The reason I assume this is because nowhere in the above paragraph do I see anything resembling the assertion that one issue is more important than the other. In fact, what I did read, was that not recognizing and accepting gay married couples in the church actually undermines the church’s efforts to help the poor.

What Frank means, I believe, is that casting a gay couple out of church activities because they are married, leaves one less couple doing the “good” work of the church. The more people, gay, straight or otherwise, you have willing to help the poor in the name of the church, the more poor you will be able to help.

You see, darling David, how what you read and what he said are two entirely different sentiments?

But because some bigoted hatred is far more important to the church (shocker!), these two men (and many like them) are no longer able to help the poor with their church. It really could end up being a good thing though, because these men and women who want to do good, will turn to secular groups to join so they can help the poor. You’re shooting yourselves in the proverbial foot by sending more and more loving, caring and charitable people in to the outstretched and welcoming arms of the secularists. I, for one, am excited about that. Soon, by your own actions, we will outnumber you. You poor, idiotic fools.

David then decides, quite inaccurately, that typing out the following line and making it public would be in his best interest:

That homosexual people have been the most privileged group in western moral liberalism’s discourse has been clear for some time, but rarely said so directly.

Yes. Because these men want to remain in their church doing the same thing they’ve always done, only while being married, and have people willing to defend that wish with them, they are “privileged”.

Wait, what?

Makes as much sense as nipples on men.

Here is how privileged homosexuals are:

  1. Hetero couples can get married in 196 countries. Homosexual couples can marry in 16.

  2. Hetero couples can marry in 50 US states, one District and 5 territories. Homosexual couples? 19 states and the District of Columbia.

  3. A heterosexual relationship is punishable by death, imprisonment or violence in zero countries. A homosexual relationship is punishable in 81 countries.

  4. Heterosexual couples are allowed to adopt children in 196 countries. Homosexual couples are allowed to adopt in 16 countries.

  5. Heterosexual couples are allowed to be members of and get married in 41,000 Christian denominations. Same sex couples? 5.

I’m not sure you understand what “privileged” means, David Mills. If it wasn’t so obvious this is all borne of your hatred (likely fueled by guilt over your own homosexual tendencies) for anyone different from yourself, I’d be concerned for your safety and well being. No one who interpreted Frank’s op-ed the way you did, is stable enough to be living without the daily care of a nurse or an aid. You’re a sick fuck, but luckily you’re an outdated one who will soon be an obsolete relic, like slave owners, bloodletters and witch-hunters.

Enjoy the wrong side of history, asshole.


Recent Posts

See All



Related Products

bottom of page