Archbishop Vincent Nichols voiced his hope in March, after the government launched its consultation on the right to civil marriage being extended to gay couples, that discussion would be "measured and reasonable."
The archbishop's latest outburst in his Christmas Eve sermon indicates that measure and reason were demanded only of supporters of gay marriage not its detractors.
The Catholic Church's leader in England and Wales called government plans "shambolic" and denied that it had a mandate for change.
It would be closer to the mark to assert that no government has a mandate to discriminate against a significant section of society.
The archbishop has previously demeaned gay couples' capacity to love and cherish each other as heterosexual couples do by insisting that the most that they can experience is a "profound friendship."
His latest offering to debate reiterates his concentration on the creation of children as the central function of marriage, dubbing this "personal sharing in the creative love of God."
Most families are delighted by the birth of the next generation, but not all are.
Some couples choose not to have children while others are unable to do so. Artificial insemination and adoption are available for them as they are and must be for gay couples.
Archbishop Nichols's tirade against gay people being treated equally under the law follows an offensive speech by the head of his church Pope Benedict XVI, who described gay marriage as destroying the very "essence of the human creature."
As someone personally implicated in the systematic cover-up of the endemic sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy in many countries across the world, Pope Benedict ought to be a little self-critical and more measured in his statements.
Opposition to gay marriage is not confined to the Catholic church. Most organised religion fetishises heterosexuality and, within it, tries to control women's sexuality by obsessing about female virginity.
This was Archbishop Nichols's second target when he sniped at childbirth outside marriage, claiming that "governments mistakenly promote such patterns of sexual intimacy as objectively to be approved and even encouraged among the young."
High Court judge Sir Paul Coleridge jumped on the bigotry bandwagon in his newspaper article, declaring that the issue of gay marriage concerns "0.1 per cent of the population," which does rather suggest that he ought to talk less and listen more.
There is a clear majority - perhaps two to one - shown by opinion polling in favour of gay couples being able to wed if they choose to do so.
Churches, temples, mosques, synagogues and other places of worship would not be forced to carry out marriage ceremonies at variance with their views, although, of course, denominations that see no cause for discrimination ought to be free to do so.
Freedom of religion is an important right in an increasingly secular society, where a large minority already professes no identification with any faith group.
But acceptance of the right to freedom of religious belief and assembly can never be allowed to lead to a situation where religious organisations dictate to society on the basis of their own interpretation of what a deity may have said to them.
Despite what Coleridge says, equal marriage rights for gay couples is not just a question for lesbians and gay men.
It is a crucial part of a societal agenda based on equality and mutual respect.
If you appreciated this article then please consider donating to the Morning Star's Fighting Fund to ensure we can keep developing your paper.