Catholic Archbishop in Australia faces fines, punishment over marriage pamphlet that LGBT mov’t claims is “insulting.” Demanding “gay” diversity training in Catholic schools

[Here’s the entire article taken from Mass Resistance, a Massachusetts group fighting the good fight that our bishops are too afraid to fight. -Cyprian]

Using “anti-discrimination” laws against us: Religious freedom becoming a thing of the past. A preview of what you can expect in the United States.

POSTED: Dec 5 2015

This is where the LGBT movement’s aggressive push for “anti-discrimination” laws across America is leading us:

Frightening headline in newspaper in Australia.

A state tribunal in Australia has announced it is moving forward with a discrimination complaint against a Catholic Archbishop which will likely lead to further action. The crime? Last summer, bishops across Australia distributed a pamphlet describing the Catholic view of marriage to students in their Catholic schools. An LGBT activist subsequently filed a formal complaint against one of the bishops, charging that the pamphlet “offends and humiliates” homosexuals. The complaint also targets the members of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, as authors of the pamphlet.

The Office of Anti-Discrimination has announced that the complaint has merit, and that Archbishop Julian Porteous, the Archdiocese of Hobart in Tasmania, the primary bishop in the complaint, is now being investigated for a violation of the Anti-Discrimination Act.

Archbishop Julian Porteous speaks to the press about the complaint against him and the Church.

As a remedy, the complaint demands that all Catholic schools in Australia be required to implement LGBT diversity education. It also demands a formal apology by the Catholic Church to the LGBT community. The bishops named in the complaint could also face other court action and large fines.

The "now-infamous" Catholic marriage pamphlet given out in Catholic schools across Australia.

What does the marriage pamphlet say?

The 18-page pamphlet, titled “Don’t Mess With Marriage,” is written in a low-key style as a “pastoral letter.” It basically describes Catholic religious teaching on marriage. It says, for example:

The Catholic tradition teaches that every human being is a unique and irreplaceable person, created in the image of God and loved by Him. Because of this, every man, woman and child has great dignity and worth which can never be taken away. This includes those who experience same-sex attraction. They must be treated with respect, sensitivity, and love …

Same-sex friendships are of a very different kind: to treat them as the same does a grave injustice to both kinds of friendship and ignores the particular values that real marriages serve …

But sociological research, as well as the long experience of Church and society, attests to the importance for children of having, as far as possible, both a mother and father.  ‘Messing with marriage’, therefore, is also ‘messing with kids’. It is gravely unjust to them …

Indeed, in this pastoral letter we argue that what is unjust – gravely unjust – is: to legitimise the false assertion that there is nothing distinctive about a man and a woman, a father or a mother …

The pamphlet also addresses the way the term “discrimination” has been used for political purposes:

The Catholic Church opposes all forms of unjust discrimination …Advocates for ‘same-sex marriage’ rarely focus on the real meaning and purpose of marriage. Instead they assume that equal dignity and the principle of non-discrimination demand the legal recognition of same-sex relationships as marriages. This appeal to equality and nondiscrimination gets things the wrong way around.

LGBT movement files formal complaint against the Church

The pamphlets were distributed to students in Catholic schools across Australia in June. The homosexual movement was incensed and complained in the press.  

On Sept. 15, the formal complaint was filed by Martine Delaney, a cross-dressing man who is also running for national Parliament as a “Greens” Party candidate. Since Delaney lives in Tasmania, a province of Australia, it was filed there against the Archbishop in Tasmania. Tasmania was apparently also chosen because it has a favorable legal and political climate for such a filing (a strategy also used by LGBT activists in the US).

Martine Delaney, a cross-dressing man, filed the complaint against the Catholic Church.

The complaint has been summarized in an article in the Tasmanian Times. In the complaint, Delaney claims the pamphlet breaches Section 17 of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act which prohibits offence and humiliation on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Among the charges in his complaint:

On page 9, the booklet says the “complementarity” of men and women means the union of a man and a woman in marriage “makes them whole”. This obviously implies same-sex attracted people can never be whole people, especially when viewed in the light of the booklet’s main message – that they should not be able to marry.

This is deeply offensive, humiliating and insulting to same-sex attracted people because it says we, and our relationships, are inherently and irredeemably defective and second rate. It effectively says we are less human and less entitled to the respect every human being deserves. If the booklet said, unlike their white counterparts, mixed-race couples were not capable of wholeness, it would be considered deeply racist and there would be an outcry. The booklet’s claim about the incapacity of same-sex attracted people to be whole is equally offensive.

This is similar – almost identical — to the language and rhetoric used against pro-family groups in the US that the LGBT movement labels as “hate groups.”

Australian Senate attempts to take action

This issue has certainly caught fire among pro-family people in Australia. On Nov. 12, pro-family members of the Australian Senate  filed a motion to support the Catholic Church’s right to free speech. But even that was considered “unacceptable” and it was blocked from being voted on by a coalition of left-wing Senators.

The motion, filed by the Senator from Tasmania, simply stated: “The Senate, while not expressing a view on the contents of the booklet issued by the Australian Catholic bishops conference entitled Don’t Mess with Marriage, fully supports the rights of members of the Catholic church, including Archbishop Julian Porteous, to distribute it.”

Nevertheless, at least one pro-family Senator made a blistering speech on the Senate floor about the “campaign of hate and discrimination to silence church leaders” that is now taking place!

The Commission announces that the complaint has merit

On Nov. 13, the Commission on Anti-Discrimination announced that Delaney has a legitimate case against Archbishop Porteous and the Australian Catholic Bishop’s Conference, and that an investigation will begin. It will most likely proceed to a court-style tribunal hearing.

The Catholic Church has 21 days to submit a formal response to the complaint.

Archbishop holding firm

Thankfully, the Australian Catholic Church, and particularly Archbishop Porteous, Tasmania, are standing up to this fairly well. They are polite, dignified, and caring – but not backing down on their principles as they head into the lion’s den. He has told the press:

In distributing the pastoral letter, Don’t Mess With Marriage, my aim was to assist the Catholic community in understanding the teaching of the Catholic Church, at a time when debate on this matter was widespread within the community . . .

Fair-minded readers . . . would see it was a very carefully worded and indeed compassionate statement, not designed to provoke or hurt anyone. The concerted campaign that has followed its publication suggests that some people simply cannot tolerate Christian beliefs being held by anyone, spoken by anyone, influencing anyone.

Fear across Australia

MassResistance has been contacted by several people in Australia who are very fearful of where this is going, and for good reason. As an example, last week we got the following email from an activist in Tasmania, with more links from local newspapers:

Hi Brian,

I’m sure you have heard about this but I’m wondering whether you would consider publicising this please?


He – and others – want Americans to know!

What this means for all of us

We all remember when we were told that “same-sex marriage” would not affect anyone else.

We’ll admit that we’re a little uneasy about writing this report in our usual straightforward manner. We need to address this clearly. This is a lunatic situation. From a reality-inversion standpoint, it’s getting beyond Orwellian; we’re moving into Solzhenitsyn territory. And this is coming to America.

Religions freedom or freedom of speech mean nothing to any of these people, if it gets in the way of their agendas. We see that over and over.

Unfortunately, even our “good” politicians are largely useless in facing it, or even understanding it. These kinds of laws have been put in place across the U.S. for well over a decade while good people generally have done nothing to stop it.

Over the past year, the Republican governors of Indiana, Utah, and Arizona actually successfully pushed for harsh LGBT “anti-discrimination” laws in their legislatures. The reasons these they gave ranged from “compromise” to “equality.”  In each case, the Left celebrated as pro-family conservatives cringed. (In Utah, even the major “pro-family” groups caved in.)

And it’s continuing. When the Massachusetts Legislature re-convenes in January, it will vote on an outrageous transgender public accommodations “bathroom bill”, which has large support right now. And there is a well-funded move in the US Congress to pass a very harsh national LGBT "non-discrimination" law!

What can we say? Our side has been polite for far too long. We cannot let this aggressive movement continue against us. In their own way, these Australian Catholic Bishops are telling it like it is. We must not do any less. We all must turn up the heat in this fight. As they did in Houston last month, victory can certainly be achieved.

Get AQ Email Updates

18 comments on “Catholic Archbishop in Australia faces fines, punishment over marriage pamphlet that LGBT mov’t claims is “insulting.” Demanding “gay” diversity training in Catholic schools

  1. This was an elephant in the Synod chamber. There was no reflection then in the tense discussion that it was not only a matter of theology but also of rupture with the secular state. Kasper’s side would have averted the collision, an orthodox rendering puts us in jail. We seem to skate along in perpetual blindness to the problem that we can’t live here any more. Not the way it is. They are going to close our schools and eventually our churches. And since they need religion (only a few of them know it at the moment–the Chinese know it, Chinese leadership goes to church, the one they have constructed) that will come too. (My sci fi novel tells it pretty well, if I do say so. A transvestite Obama leads it.)

    At my church we don’t realize we can’t even be boy scouts anymore. And our sons still enlist in the army.

    The article ends with the call to get to work, but gives only the example of fighting fragments of bills, and doesn’t even mention rolling back homosexual marriage.

    That won’t be enough, it isn’t focused, it doesn’t enunciate an ultimate goal people can keep clear, it doesn’t touch on other necessities needed to overcome not just homosexuality but sodomy in all its forms from contraception on. And something else I know readers must grit their teeth to keep from killing me: we are loudly, continually insulting–we have permitted racial insults here on Angelqueen–a strong ally in this struggle, American Muslims. Nor do we, in our ecumenical excesses, reach out to evangelicals for joint political action. Because Vatican II TIED US TO THE SECULAR STATE. Archbishop Lefebvre knew this so well. Before Vatican II we had the political option of opposition to the will of the majority, and even of seeking the Catholic religious state in case of need. They gave it away.

    The Catholic religious state really must be our ultimate goal. There won’t be any compromise. Look at that face in the photo. He wants us dead.

    • And something else I know readers must grit their teeth to keep from killing me: we are loudly, continually insulting–we have permitted racial insults here on Angelqueen–a strong ally in this struggle, American Muslims.

      The New York Daily News, the one that began “prayer shaming,” may have an opening for pro-Muslim Catholic thinkers. From

      Today the New York Daily News wrote the reformed Christian at the San Bernardino office deserved to die.
      He had it coming — And Pamela Geller should die too.


      By Linda Stasi–

      They were two hate-filled, bigoted municipal employees interacting in one department. Now 13 innocent people are dead in unspeakable carnage.

      One man spent his free time writing frightening, NRA-loving, hate-filled screeds on Facebook about the other’s religion.

      The other man quietly stewed and brewed his bigotry, collecting the kind of arsenal that the Facebook poster would have envied.

      What they didn’t realize is that except for their different religions they were in many ways similar men who even had the same job.

      One man, the Muslim, was a loser who had to travel all the way to Pakistan to get himself an email bride. (I refuse to add to their fame by using the killer and his murderous wife’s names.)

      That wife radicalized him and fueled his hatred. The FBI is investigating her ties to Al Qaeda and ISIS. Go to the Middle East, meet your new wife, meet some terror leaders, begin your wedded bliss back in the USA.

      The other man, the victim, Nicholas Thalasinos, was a radical Born Again Christian/Messianic Jew, who also connected with his future wife online and had traveled across the country to meet her.

      The killer, however, became half of an Islamic Bonnie & Clyde, while the other died as the male equivalent of Pamela Geller.

      The killers deserve every disgusting adjective thrown at them. And more.

      But the victim is also inaccurately being eulogized as a kind and loving religious man.

      • Cyprian, did these people work together??? I didn’t hear about that!

        Listen, I am not ‘pro-Muslim’! I’m just thinking of the situation strategically (ok, with a certain chivalric aversion to cheap racism). Muslims and Catholics have converging interests in the subject of the post above. We could be allies in the struggle against homosexual legislation, just as we could be with Evangelicals, even though yes, I know, I know, they are a false religion.

        It’s real simple. We fight back and we win, or we die. We will end up with Kasper’s solution because it it the only legal one, presently. It is the ONLY LEGAL ONE. Orthodoxy is off the table unless we do as this post suggests and start to fight back. And it’s going to take more than jumping up and down screaming Raghead Raghead. And who’s there with us there? Fag trolls for the homosexual agenda. They hate Islam the most of all, and they want Muslims and Catholics to fight it out. So they win. We’ll be fighting for them. That’s all that will happen. We have to think this through, realize we have to fight and make a plan. Our best guys are going to have to get off the speaking circuit and lead us.

    • “He wants us dead.” Don’t the Muslims want us dead too… or “converted to Islam”… or subjugated to a false religion? None of these options are acceptable, no matter what race is involved.
      Rather I think we need to reawaken the soul of Christendom by restoring the virtue of purity, which fosters fruitfulness in marriage, so that all things are first ordered to the service of posterity and then ultimately at the service of those who are engaged in the contemplation of Truth.

      • But they’ve made impurity the law of the land, Anthony, and they will not let our schools teach purity. And it isn’t the Muslims who will do this. They may want us dead but they share with us a respect for purity. They would vote against homosexual marriage and they would vote to protect our schools. That other guy up there who wants us dead hates purity, hates Our Lady, hates chastity, hates marriage, hates God himself. He wants us deader.

        • They may want us dead but they share with us a respect for purity. They would vote against homosexual marriage and they would vote to protect our schools.

          Sorry, Jan. They do not have any semblance of purity, nor would they protect our schools. You understand that adult males are allowed to buggar boys under Islam? Their prophet was one of them. As for protection, we would have to pay the tribute. That’s unacceptable. The example of the Little Sisters of the Poor says that you don’t even sign the paper in tribute to grand mufti Barry.

          There is no common cause with Muslims, and you delude yourself that we can join with them. Yes, we may be subject to them, but then we will die. The End.

        • However, Jan, there is a positive side to purity that encourages fruitfulness in marriage, so that there may be more souls to worship God in Spirit and in Truth. This is a practical aspect that is currently lacking in the teaching of the Catholic Church (note the widespread promotion of NFP), and is necessarily lacking in the false religion of Islam. It’s not a racial matter to oppose Islamic growth; it’s rather a religious matter of survival. Muslims don’t operate fairly, as on a level playing field, with respect to the honest quest for the Truth.

  2. Cyprian, they have a formal commitment to resist homosexuality, in spite of their buggers, and they punish pornography in their communities. I wish you would just research that a second. They could be counted on to vote with us on those items. Evangelicals, too.

    But I won’t argue with you on those points. But what is your plan, then, to fight, as this post asks us to do. Fight exactly how? I mean besides with prayer, of course. But we also have to have a political plan, this is a political assault.

  3. I am sorry but I do NOT see Muslims as allies in our fight against the homosexual mafia. They should be in theory, but in practice if you read what has gone on in the Middle East, there has been massive abuse of young boys by Muslim men in positions of power, such as police chiefs and army officers. In fact some brave American soldiers have been punished by their superiors for taking a stand against homosexual abuse by Muslim officers against boy sex slaves.
    Islam is a hypocritical religion – it professes one thing, purity and modesty for women etc then it lets its men do whatever they like in terms of sexual depravity and contempt for women and children.

    • Well, then, fidei, how shall we fight the necessary political fight this post calls for? Tell me with whom we shall ally? Ninety per cent of Catholic US agrees with Kasper, the easier path, the path away from martyrdom. They probably would not vote for a Catholic platform. Would you ally with the Evangelicals? When I say ally, I mean do what is necessary to build a group of leaders acting out a plan to propose legislation and do what is needed to get it passed, including allying with other parties whose paths converge with ours on the issue. I have never bothered to look up the number of evangelicals or of Muslims in the US either. Does any reader know off hand? I think our legislative goal could be ultimately a constitutional amendment, but there could be interim goals to get us used to the language and the ideas. For example, research initiatives that examine the effect of homosexuality on practitioners (not being done presently).

      I can’t believe you wouldn’t offer the chance to support any legislation that could step us toward a constitutional amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage to the political representatives of Muslims in our community. I just can’t believe that. If they were dogs that could vote, we’d offer them the chance. In fact, they are believers in one god, and while they are everything you say in terms of hypocrisy, so is every single other religion in the world. Ours being the true one. I myself most dislike Muslims because they deny original sin and are every bit as liberal as liberals because of it.

      As far as buggery goes, I wish I didn’t have to think how your remarks might look to anyone thinking about the US’ record on this score, and the Church’s priesthood’s record on this score. We don’t look so good. It doesn’t put the Church outside some kind of pale. Nor Islam, when we are speaking of mere cooperation about shared goals.

  4. Well, Fidei, I don’t know what we can say that we haven’t already. But here goes.

    It’s not that they have buggars, like we have in some of our priests. The point, Jan, is that their doctrines PERMIT it. Count 1 sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance. They don’t just have happenstance murderers going postal. Their doctrines CALL FOR IT. Count 2 on sins crying for vengeance. Basically, Islam is a Satanic mind-control cult. The Church has had to shed a lot of blood over a millennium to ward them off. Islam isn’t something you can bargain with, in terms of hoping they further what we want if we work together.

    We’re much closer to working with evangelicals, and there are still quite a number of them who would support a marriage amendment. Yes, by all means, let’s do that. If citizen Muslims want to help, fine. But I wouldn’t seek out their help.

    • I must add that here in Australia the action against Archbishop Porteous has sent chills through many, including a well known agnostic conservative journalist. The conservatives here recognise the great danger when these powerful Tribunals begin to ban freedom of speech and threaten to jail those who speak out against the secular humanist left doctrine. Archbishop Porteous is a great man, humble, gently spoken, holy and Catholic. The booklet he spread through his diocese was in fact issued through many of the Catholic Dioceses in Australia, including my own. I have read the booklet and it is very moderate in its language and in no way abuses homosexuals. That is what makes this whole fiasco so frightening. The booklet merely outlines the Catholic teaching regards marriage. For the forces of the Left to attempt to shut this down by legal force, and by threatening legal action against the person of a Catholic Bishop, must be a wake up call to ALL CATHOLICS. We are at war! The enemy is getting more aggressive by the month.
      And by the way – wouldn’t it be nice if His Holiness stepped up at this point a publically issued a statement defending Archbishop Porteous and the booklet itself?

  5. Fidei and Cyprian (and all). I’ve been thinking about this thread all morning. Let me try to say what I want to say like this. I’m going to skip that buggery is a part of Islamic doctrine. I think I can just let ISIS throwing active homosexuals off a building argues what they believe–or think they believe, apparently–for itself. But let me knead up all the hyperbole into this kind of statement: let’s go to war on Islam. Let’s go now. Because that’s the drumbeat across the world: bomb them until they are all dead.
    That might reach ears here in the US–to impeach Obama or just vote him out next time, to elect a hawk who will put boots on the ground (and repatriate our Mexicans while we’re at it). So we go to war on the anti-Muslim side, our side. Which is imposing homosexuality and abortion wherever it goes. That’s a fact, my fellow Catholics. That’s our state now. Plus Australia and Canada and the UK etc. The whole West. We will be fighting for that. There is simply no escape from the fact. As Catholics, if we win that war, we lose–those forces will appear at our church doors next, that’s the message of this post corroborated by fidei. But we won’t win it anyway. The immigrants from that quarter, after we spread our bombing over wider and wider areas of the earth, will overwhelm us first. Or their rotting bodies shot down at the border will poison us. Or the sheer horror of killing a whole population spread over many, many nations rather than evangelizing them will choke us. And most pundits say you can’t put out a desire for the religious state by killing the body that yearns for it. (As we should be yearning for ours.)
    So what your words–and there are much more inflammatory examples all across the web, but yours join that chorus beautifully–will really do is provoke ‘little wars’ here at home. We can be rude at the store to the woman in the hijab. We can mock the guys’s beard at the holiday party. Maybe we can call him a raghead. (Maybe there’s worse terms that I don’t know and I’m glad.) Yeah that’ll show ’em. And it’s such an interesting way to pass time, not at all boring nor ACTUALLY risky like building the political party that could help our situation here at home. By allying with those who also–I guess against their faith, if Cyprian is right about the Koran–reject the sex socialism of the West.
    Don’t rally your boys, ‘what else can we say?’ Just say you’re wrong.

  6. Good grief, Jan. We answer why we shouldn’t join with Muslims, and you go off like we’re advocating wiping them off the face of the Earth. It’s a non-sequitur.

    Maybe you missed my agreeing that we should work with evangelicals (and anyone of good will, I’ll add) to pass a marriage amendment.

    I suspected my use of raghead bothered you from your first comment about “racial” insults. Islam isn’t a race. It’s a demonic cult that features folks wearing head-wraps blowing up women and children. Maybe it’s just me, but I find that behavior unsettling. Even more, I don’t respect them. But I’m the bogeyman because I call cold-blooded mass-murderers names.

    God bless you, Jan. I have no desire to be your enemy. Good luck implementing your solutions to the world’s problems.

  7. I did miss that about the evangelicals, Cyprian. But aren’t you aware the tide your comments join a roar of others calling for very savage actions? People are advocating personal violence toward individuals in a thousand forms. Yes, Cyprian, I was thinking of your use of ‘raghead’, although I forgot it was you. I thought of it every day since you posted it. It made me cry. I thought of it scrawled across Our Lord’s chest–for this forum speaks for Him in the world, whether it says so on the masthead or not–and the world thinking somehow this is what He would say. Can you imagine that, Cyprian? Is it the approach He would take? Did He ever use a racial slur ever?

    When I was a child in East St. Louis, my nun teachers in grade school and high school led us in loving service to our black neighbors in their neighborhoods. We did not gather goods for them, we went to them. We regularly visited one school and had after school activities that always started with a prayer and ended in a shared cookie. That is Catholic. That is Christ to the world. War can be just. But personal disrespect to another because of their race or faith? To use racial terms toward them in the same usage as the world? It cannot help but make me cry. It does now, when I should be hurrying to mass on the Feast.

    Please forgive me if I have offended you, Cyprian, but I can’t bear it. Thank you for your good luck. I do realize the futility, most of the time.

  8. “Don’t rally your boys, ‘what else can we say?’ Just say you’re wrong.” We are not boys, Janet , and for the record I stand with Cyprian and Fidei in their views on Islamic terrorism. Sometimes I think the troubles we are in re: today’s culture lead us to strike out against our friends. I hope this is not the case here and that you will reconsider the tone of your remarks.


    The above is a site quoting Archbishop Lefebvre on the subject of Islam in Europe. In spite of the fact that Europe was at the time of the statement no longer a Christian country (a fact of which the archbishop would have been aware, as well as the consequences) he was not at all welcoming nor concerned with charges of racism. My thesis has been that they want to take over when we abdicate responsibility, the Archbishop’s is that they want to take over period. Of course I only know the former mode of existence. But I defer to him, and I will not henceforth defend them as possible allies in our struggle against secularism (I will still regret statements of racist framing, in Christ’s name). If the Archbishop wants to update me from heaven, that the situation to which he referred has become stale and that now Islam carries forward decent morals, more decent than our society’s. I am open to the message. Who can I trust if not the Archbishop? I believe I am entitled to believe that we can still live together with Islam in a minority in a strong enough Christian society that is not contracepting, with firm constraints on their liberty. However, I don’t think what the Archbishop says applies equally to Hispanic immigrants to the US.

Leave a Reply