To the most learned and very Catholic (because he tells us so) Jock,

You upset me when you write egregious rubbish about the church while adopting the pose of a Catholic. Your words deliberately misrepresent Catholic teaching as well as the actualite. And from what you say, you are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church either, since you do not accept the magisterium of the Church (you don't, do you?). Therefore you are a deliberate liar.

On the first point, Archbishop Nichols DID NOT object to 'the right' of non-Catholics to a Catholic education. He merely pointed out that there were not enough Catholic schools around to cater for both Catholics (even Catholics, in fact) and non-Catholics alike. You should correct your comments. In fact Catholic schools already educate a fair amount of non-Catholics anyway. Again, this is something you should acknowledge. You may also wish to reflect on the fact that Catholics are as much tax-payers as non-Catholics and through their taxes support (frequently under-performing) secular schools which do not meet their needs. 

At least, however, you have conceded the right to Catholic schools, in variance with many prominent members of your party who wish to deny ordinary people the choice between secular and faith schools.

Then you bang on about laws designed to discriminate against Catholic organisations by denying them public funding if they follow Church teaching. Look again at the section of the catechism you quoted. It prohibits 'unjust discrimination', NOT legitimate discernment in the vitally important area of placing children for adoption.

You ought by now to know that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that same-sex relations are immoral. Need I point you in the direction of the catechism?

Section 2357 says that

' ... Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.'

It is dishonest for you to omit this in your post, as it is dishonest for you to suggest an equivalence between those who knowingly engage in sexual acts which are closed to fertility, such as same-sex relations, and those infertile couples who have no choice in the matter.

By the way, is it only the Roman Catholic Church you are targetting or do you also concern yourself with adoption agencies which only place children with families of a similar ethnic background and de facto discriminate against those families of the wrong skin colour?

There are many groups whose historical reputation in placing children in the care of adults is, how shall we put it, not what it might be. These include sports coaches, child entertainers, politicians and teachers. Yet I doubt you would guilt-trip these groups for their historic failings as you unreasonably do the RC Church.

I don't imagine that you would hold swimming teachers and magicians collectively guilty for the actions of a minority of rotten apples. Yet you apply a totally different reasoning to the RC Church. If it pronounces on the subject of sexual morality and says something you find unpalatable you take refuge in crude anti-Catholic prejudice, either selectively quoting the Catechism to your own purpose or invoking past scandals in the absence of any convincing doctrinal argument.

Either way, your bitterness against the Church is as obvious as it is intellectually destructive.

I conjecture that it stems from the unresolved conflict between your sexuality and your sprirituality. If I am correct, you are in an unenviable position. But engaging in lazy anti-clericalism while indulging in the cheapest casuistry will do you no good at all, neither will it solve your problems.